>p^^. 

















iO* ,i^Lr* > 



•: %.** •*^"« \./ ••^'V %.** •'^•- \./ 











o, ♦^Tv;» v'^ <> '^.1* .0^ "^ *'T?r»' A <. 'r.T*' .0^ '^ ♦.":^»' -A <, 











:. -n^o^ ». 










'bV" 







>. ••V.' 

















^^ 



. « * A ^ 










«^"' ''h. 



'' .. •" 










cv • 




VV 











•>i..*' oV^Siia'- '-^^^-^ -Jm^^r^. -^^^ -I^M^' '^MrS 



^O^ •.CSftM>o iPvl 










rA^ 






•bv 









%^^ 




"♦bv* 




HO*. . 













^S'Cn 


















9^ tV ♦ 









































1 *<ft* • 







v^ »':^* <^^ 




IC ^^^ 



Bureau of Mines Information Circular/1980 



Availability of Critical Scrap 
Metals Containing Chromium 
in the United States 

Superalloys and Cast Heat- 
and Corrosion-Resistant Alloys 



By LeRoy R. Curwick, Walter A. Petersen, 
and Harry V. Makar 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



(j^iulm o^UA, fOu.t£jrkc^ of /rfm£j^. ^^ 



S yYHM-4ji.€fV-> l-^^ c t>w^t,t u 



y 



Information Circular 8821 

Availability of Critical Scrap 
Metals Containing Chromium 
in the United States 

Superalloys and Cast Heat- 
and Corrosion-Resistant Alloys 



By LeRoy R. Curwick, Walter A. Petersen, 
and Harry V. Makar 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 

Lindsay D. Norman, Acting Director 



As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior 
has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural 
resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water re- 
sources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and 
cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for 
the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 
our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is 
in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major re- 
sponsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who 
live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. 




^^^' 



^J^ 

»-'' 



0^ 



This publication has been cataloged as follows: 



Curwick, LeRoy R 

Availability of critical scrap metals containing chromium in 
the United States. Super alloys and cast heat- and corrosion- 
resistant alloys. 

(Bureau of Mines information circular) 

Bibliography: p. 38.- 

Supt. of Docs, no.: I 28.27:8821 

1» Scrap metals— Recycling, 2, Chromium, I. Petersen, Walter A., 
joint author. II. Makar, Harry V,, joint author. III. Title. IV. Series: 
United States. Bureau of Mines. Information circular ; 8821. 



-jPNaasOH [TD794.5] 622s [333. 8'5] 80-607102 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C. 20402 



(.5 



(1^ 






CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract , 1 

Introduction 2 

Methods and assumptions used for this study 3 

Model 3 

Definition of alloys 4 

Sources of information 6 

Reliability 6 

Rounding 6 

Assumptions 6 

Information gaps 7 

Results 7 

Alloy production 7 

Production efficiencies 13 

Melt charge makeup and scrap utilization 13 

Scrap generation 15 

Scrap export 17 

Discussion 17 

Materials balance 17 

Use patterns of the alloy-producing industry 17 

Scrap utilization 23 

Remelted 23 

Material losses 24 

Downgraded 25 

Exported 27 

Efficiency of recycling , 28 

Scrap price considerations 29 

Quantity of chromium required for melting 29 

Relationship to total U.S. chromium requirements 31 

Past trends in alloy production and scrap generation in the super- 
alloy and heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy casting industries, 

pro j ec ted to the year 2000 32 

Comments on improving the model and continuing surveillance of 

field 33 

Summary 34 

Conclusions 36 

Bibliography 38 

Appendix A. — Definition of terms 39 

Appendix B . — Development of materials flow model , 44 

Appendix C . — Chemical compositions of specific alloys 48 

Appendix D. — Companies and organizations contacted during this study.... 51 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1 . Materials flow circuit used for production model 4 

2. Annual primary nickel consumption for high- temperature alloys, 

1958-78 11 



^^ 



S^ 3. Annual primary production for heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy 



castings , 1958-78 12 



ii 



ILLUSTRATIONS—Continued 

Page 

4. Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys materials flow 

circuit 18 

5. Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys materials flow 

circuit 18 

6. Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys materials flow circuit 19 

7 . Wrought nickel-iron-base alloys materials flow circuit 19 

8 . Heat-resistant alloy castings materials flow circuit 20 

9. Corrosion-resistant alloy castings materials flow circuit 20 

10 . Overall materials flow circuit 21 

11 . Schematic diagram showing interclass scrap flow 22 

TABLES 

1. Nominal composition ranges of the classes of alloys studied 5 

2. Estimated production of primary product for investment cast nickel- 

and cobalt-base alloys in 1976 8 

3. Estimated production of primary product for hardfacing cast nickel- 

and cobalt-base alloys in 1976 8 

4. Estimated production of primary product for wrought nickel- and 

cobalt-base alloys in 1976 8 

5. Estimated production of primary product for wrought nickel-iron- 

base alloys in 1976 9 

6. Estimated production of primary product for heat-resistant alloy 

castings in 1976 9 

7. Estimated production of primary product for corrosion-resistant 

alloy castings in 1976 9 

8. Annual primary nickel consumption for superalloys, other nickel and 

nickel alloys, cast nickel alloys, wrought nickel alloys, high- 
temperature and electrical resistance alloys, and nonferrous 
alloys , 1958-78 10 

9. Annual primary production of heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy 

castings , 1958-78 12 

10. Production efficiencies by alloy class for raw materials to primary 

product and for primary product to finished product 13 

11 . Estimated production by alloy class in 1976 13 

12 . Melt charge raw materials 14 

13. Published producer prices of various forms of chromium and other 

selected primary metals in February and May 1979 14 

14. Prices quoted for identified solid scrap and calculated metal value 

for several alloys in February and May 1979 15 

15 . Quantity of home scrap generated in 1976 16 

16 . Quantity of prompt industrial scrap generated in 1976 16 

17. Quantity of obsolete scrap represented by finished product produced 

in 1976 and obsolete scrap available in 1976 16 

18. Quantity of nickel waste and scrap exported and imported annually, 

1965-78 17 

19. Scrap requirements for remelting, by alloy class and scrap form and 

origin 23 



iii 



TABLES—Continued 

Page 

20. Sources of lost scrap, by alloy class and scrap origin 24 

21. Sources of scrap downgraded, by alloy class and scrap form and 

origin 24 

22. Sources of solid scrap exported, by alloy class and scrap form and 

origin 25 

23. Scrap recycling, by alloy class and scrap disposition 26 

24. Calculated recycling efficiency for the six classes of alloy 28 

25 . Calculated weighted average composition, by alloy class 30 

26. Chromium content of melt charge components, by alloy class 30 

27. Chromium content of scrap not directly recycled in 1976... 31 

28. Quantities of primary metal chromium used in the melt charge 

in 1976 32 

29. Relation between primary chromium consumed for the six alloy 

classes and total primary chromium consumed for metallurgical 

applications in 1976 32 

30. Quantity of contained elements in products and scrap in 1976 34 

31. Source, form, and quantity of scrap generated in 1976 35 

32 . Scrap disposition by source and form in 1976 35 

C-1. Compositions of cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys 49 

C-2 . Compositions of wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys 49 

C-3 . Compositions of wrought nickel-iron-base alloys 50 

C-4. Compositions of major heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy castings. 50 



Bureau of Mines 
Information Circular 8821 

AVAILABILITY OF CRITICAL SCRAP METALS CONTAINING 
CHROMIUM IN THE UNITED STATES. SUPERALLOYS AND CAST HEAT- AND 
CORROSION-RESISTANT ALLOYS 

by 

LeRoy R. Curwick, Walter A. Petersen, and Harry V. Makar 



ERRATA 

Page 7, sixth line from the bottom should read as follows: category 
"Other" may in some cases represent a major portion of production, 

Page 16, Table 15: The total for the column headed "Grindings" should 
be 7.9. 

Page 16, Table 15, Footnote 2 should read as follows: Grand total: 
317.5 million pounds. 

Page 24, Table 21, Footnote 4 should read as follows: Grand total: 
104.9 million pounds of scrap containing 18.9 million pounds of chromium. 

Page 25, Table 22, Footnote 2 should read as follows: Grand total: 
19.7 million pounds of scrap containing 3.3 million pounds of chromium. 

Page 34, second line should read as follows: industries, it is clear 
that more comprehensive and specific data are required. 



AVAILABILITY OF CRITICAL SCRAP METALS CONTAINING CHROMIUM 

IN THE UNITED STATES 

Superalloys and Cast Heat- and Corrosion-Resistant Alloys^ 

by 
LeRoy R, Curwick,^ Walter A, Petersen,^ and Harry Vt Makar^ 



ABSTRACT 

This Bureau of Mines report presents the results of a study conducted to 
assess the domestic availability of chromium from superalloy and cast heat- and 
corrosion-resistant alloy scrap material. Six alloy classes included in this 
survey were investment cast, hardfacing, and wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 
alloys, wrought nickel-iron-base alloys, and heat- and corrosion-resistant 
alloy castings ~ Data were collected for 1976 on metallic scrap generation, 
use patterns, and production practices for these alloy producing and using 
industries. A model was developed that allowed an assessment of the materials 
flow circuits within the industries that produce these alloys. The types, 
amounts, sources, secondary products, and ultimate destinations of chromium- 
containing metallic scrap for the six alloy classes were determined. Regard- 
ing the overall recycling efficiency of these alloy producing and using 
industries, of the 580.9 million pounds of scrap generated from these six 
alloy classes in 1976, about 72 percent (416.8 million pounds) was remelted 
by the same alloy-producing industries, about 18 percent (104.9 million pounds) 
was downgraded into stainless and low-alloy steels, about 3 percent (19.7 
million pounds) was exported, and about 7 percent (39.5 million pounds) was 
lost through landfill or other disposal or service wastage. The lost material 
is primarily contaminated oxides for which recovery is currently uneconomic. 
However, the 124.6 million pounds of scrap material downgraded or exported in 
1976 contained potentially recoverable critical strategic elements. The 
amount of scrap material lost to the six alloy-producing industries in this 
manner contained 22.1 million pounds of chromium, 53.4 million pounds of 
nickel, 5.9 million pounds of cobalt, 35.9 million pounds of iron, and 7.3 
million pounds of other alloying elements. 



^This report was prepared by Inco Research & Development Center, Suffern, N.Y., 

under Bureau of Mines Contract J0188056. 
^Project Manager — Development, Inco Research & Development Center, Suffern, 

N.Y. 
^Senior project engineer, Inco Research & Development Center, Suffern, N.Y. 
'^Research supervisor, Avondale Research Center, Bureau of Mines, Avondale, 

Md., and technical project officer for Contract J0188056. 



INTRODUCTION 

There is growing concern that nonmarket factors may affect the price and 
availability of many of the metals used for military and other high- techno logy 
applications. Chromium (Cr) is of particular concern because the major ore 
bodies are concentrated outside the United States in areas that may be subject 
to political disruption. Chromium is technologically important and has no sub- 
stitutes for the most critical applications. Other metals of concern are 
cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni) , tungsten (W) , molybdenum (Mo), columbium (Cb), and 
tantalum (Ta) . All of these metals are used in substantial quantities in the 
alloy classes covered in this study; that is, in nickel-, cobalt-, and nickel- 
iron-base alloys and to a lesser extent in heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy 
castings. The chromiiom supply and consumption situation was recently reviewed 
in detail (1) . ^ 

The industries covered in this study can be categorized as "producers," 
"fabricators," "manufacturers," "users," and "recyclers"^ of the alloys men- 
tioned above. In general, the major participants are high-technology compan- 
ies which are conscious of product quality requirements and which work closely 
with user companies on materials problems. These industries already use as 
much available scrap as they can within the metallurgical limits imposed by 
product quality specifications and furnace operating practices. 

The most acceptable, least costly, highest quality scrap for the alloy 
producer is "home scrap." Home scrap is generated during the "raw material" 
melting to "primary product" production phase by the alloy producer industries. 
Home scrap consists of "solids," "turnings," "grindings," "skulls," "spills," 
"slags," "scales," and "dusts." In general, all home scrap solids and turn- 
ings are reused internally to make up a large portion of the raw materials for 
the "melt charge." The grindings and "mixed melt shop scrap" (skulls and 
spills) are mixed with oxides and are usually sold for refining and eventual 
use for steelmaking. Dusts, scales, and slags are contaminated and undesir- 
able for existing recycling systems and thus are largely discarded. 

"Prompt industrial scrap" consists of solids, turnings, grindings, 
"sludges," and "liquors" generated by fabricators and manufacturers during 
the primary product to "finished product" phase of equipment manufacture. 
Most alloy producers use some prompt industrial scrap in the raw materials 
charge for melting. This material is generally in the form of solids pur- 
chased either directly from the manufacturing source or indirectly through 
recyclers. 

"Obsolete scrap" is generated by users and recyclers when used equipment 
is overhauled and parts replaced, through "service wastage," and when equip- 
ment is dismantled at the end of its useful "life cycle." The usable scrap 
generally occurs as solids and grindings. The generation of obsolete scrap 
occurs over the entire life cycle of the equipment and thus introduces a time 
scale variable into this study. 

SUnderlined numbers in parentheses refer to items in the bibliography preceed- 

ing the appendixes. 
-Terms in quotation marks are defined in appendix A. 



It is common practice in the alloy melting industry to make maximum use 
of scrap as a raw material for melting. This is done because scrap metal is 
usually less expensive than primary metals and sometimes more readily avail- 
able. Qualitative information on generation and use of valuable scrap metal 
by the chromium alloy producing and using industries exists in the litera- 
ture (3-4^). However, a comprehensive quantitative study has not been done. 
This study was undertaken to fill this need. The principal objective of the 
study was to assess the domestic availability of superalloy and cast heat- and 
corrosion-resistant alloy scrap. Information to be developed included types, 
quantities, sources, secondary products, and ultimate destinations of scrap 
for the alloy classes mentioned previously. A companion study (7) deals with 
chromium-containing wrought stainless steel and heat-resisting alloy scrap. 

A secondary objective of the study was to provide data that could be used 
to estimate the quantity and quality of superalloy and cast-heat and corrosion- 
resistant alloy scrap that could be used for chromium recovery processes. Such 
processes are being developed under separate contracts . The processes under 
development will refine metallic scrap and produce pure chromium, nickel, and 
cobalt and other metals of a quality suitable for recycling to the original 
alloy producers or to other high-value uses. The implications of the results 
of the scrap study will be discussed in separate reports dealing with the 
development of these processes. The current study and the process development 
research were sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (formerly 
Federal Preparedness Agency) through the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of 
the Interior. 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR THE STUDY 

Model 

It was recognized that it was not possible to gather complete and reli- 
able data on all phases of the alloy producing and using industries. There- 
fore, a "model" of these industries was developed which, given available data 
and reliable estimates of overall industry practices, would allow derivation 
of the information required to meet the objectives of this study. 

The model used is shown in figure 1. This is a materials flow diagram 
which follows the alloys from the raw materials stage through the primary and 
finished product stages to obsolescence. Once the model was completed for the 
six alloy classes covered in the study, it was possible to address the study 
objective. A detailed description of the model is contained in appendix B. 

The numerical data for the flow diagram were developed in the following 
manner: First, the quantity of primary product was estimated from available 
data for the six alloy classes. The raw materials to primary product cycle 
was filled in, using available information on "production efficiency," rela- 
tive proportions of materials in the melt charge, and relative quantity and 
type of home scrap generated. The primary product to finished product and 
finished product to obsolescence cycles were filled in by estimating the 
quantity and forms of scrap generated at each stage. 



SCRAP 
FOR 
SALE 



SCRAP 

FOR 

SALE 



SCRAP 
DEALER 



EXPORT 



PRIMARY 
METAL 



T 



PURCHASED 
SCRAP 



HOME 
SCRAP 



•> I f 



RAW 
MATERIALS 



WASTE 



PRIMARY 
PRODUCT 



WASTE 



HOME 
SCRAP 



iUl 



FINISHED 
PRODUCT 



OBSOLETE 
SCRAP 



WASTE 



Once the model was com- 
pleted, its accuracy was 
verified by comparing pre- 
dicted quantities with data 
from independent sources, 
such as chromium consumption 
figures and scrap exports. 

Definition of Alloys 

Alloys included in this 
study were the chromium- 
containing nickel-, cobalt- 
and nickel-iron-base alloys 
and heat- and corrosion- 
resistant alloy castings. 
These generic alloys were 
divided into six broad 
classes whose alloy composi- 
tion ranges are shown in 
table 1. The alloy classi- 
fications adopted do not 
correspond precisely to 
those used in other industry 
and Government reports. They 
were carefully selected to 
encompass products of dis- 
tinct alloy-producing indus- 
tries . These classifications 
greatly simplified develop- 
ment of the production model 
and facilitated understand- 
ing of the scrap flow pat- 
terns . Tables with the 
nominal compositions of some 
specific alloys that fall within these broad classes appear in appendix C. 
These tables cover the major alloys of the classes shown. Note that certain 
alloys may appear under two classes if they are produced in two product forms 
(cast and wrought). Note that the term "superalloy" was not used to designate 
an alloy classification because it was considered to be too restrictive and 
imprecisely defined. Three of the six alloy classes listed in table 1 
(classes 1, 3, and 4) comprise the alloys that are considered by most, but 
not all, alloy producers to be superalloys. As noted above, the classes were 
defined more by producing industry than alloy composition. Thus, alloys 
listed within a given class are often produced by similar techniques for 
use in similar components. Using this classification scheme, the type and 
relative quantity of scrap generated can be more readily defined. Comments 
concerning the industries and production methods that help to distinguish the 
classes follow: 



REFINERY 



DIRECT 
SALE 



STEEL 
INDUSTRY 



FIGURE 1. - Materials flow circuit used for production model. 



1. Investment Cast . Cast alloys used primarily in gas turbine components. 
Usually made by two-step manufacturing method consisting of production of master 
melt ingot and then remelting for casting to shape. These alloys are melted in 
relatively small furnaces and have the most stringent purity requirements of the 
six classes. 



2. Hardfacing Cast . Alloys produced in the form of powders or rods for subse- 
quent use for hardfacing of metal components . 

3. Wrought Nickel- and Cobalt-Base . Alloy production characterized by casting 
of ingots which are hot-worked to bar, sheet, plate, or wire. Extensive use of AOD 
refining by this industry permits use of lower purity raw materials than for invest- 
ment cast alloys of similar nominal composition. 

4. Wrought Nickel-Iron Base . Production methods and product fonus very simi- 
lar to previous category „ These alloys are often made by stainless steel producers 
who may not make wrought nickel alloys. Also, scrap that is high in iron cannot be 
used in those alloys. 

5. Heat-Resistant Alloy Castings . Alloys in this category usually contain 
carbon for strengthening, and components are made by centrifugal casting (tubes) 
or sand casting (furnace hardware) . 

6. Corrosion-Resistant Alloy Castings . Alloys are normally made by companies 
specializing in casting components for handling corrosive fluids. The procedures 
and alloy compositions are generally similar to those used for heat-resistant 
castings. 

TABLE 1. - Nominal composition ranges of the classes of alloys studied ^' ^ 





Composition, percent 


Melting 


Alloy class 


~ Cr 


Ni 


Co 


Fe 


methods 




Min. 


Max. 


Min. 


Max. 


Min. 


Max. 


Min. 


Max. 




1. Investment cast nickel- and 

cobalt-base. 

2. Hardfacing cast nickel- and 

cobalt-base. 

3. Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base... 

4 . Wroueht nickel— iron— base 


5 

5 

15 
12 
15 
10 


30 

30 

25 
30 
30 
20 








10 

5 




75 

75 

80 
45 
35 
30 












70 

70 

80 

20 











25 
39 
39 


20 

20 

20 
55 
88 
88 


a, b 

b, a 

c, a, b 
c, a. b 


5. Heat-resistant alloy castings 

6. Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


b, c 
b, c 



^A few alloys that fall outside these ranges are undoubtedly included in the avail- 
able statistics; however, these definitions account for a large majority of the 
alloys covered. 

^Individual alloys may contain substantial quantities of additional elements includ- 
ing molybdenum, tungsten, columbium, tantalum, hafnium, titanium, aluminum, 
manganese, and silicon. See appendix C for actual compositions. 

^Listed in order of relative importance, 
a — Vacuum, 
b — Air induction, 
c — Electric arc furnace plus argon-oxygen decarburization. 



Sources of Information 

Data on alloy production, melt charge make-up , scrap generation, and scrap 
disposition were gathered from a wide variety of sources including unpublished 
information, open literature, and verbal responses to direct industry inquir- 
ies. The authors had access to the market research efforts, purchased surveys, 
and in-house industry-related expertise of The International Nickel Co., Inc. 
The following were available from the literature: trade association reports. 
Government statistical reports, and Government-sponsored surveys and reports 
related to nickel alloy utilization, scrap generation, and disposition. The 
general literature sources used in this study are listed in the bibliography. 

Because 1976 was the year for which we had the most complete set of data 
on alloy production and distribution, it was chosen as the base year for this 
study. It is recognized that 1976 was an atypical year in that alloy produc- 
tion was lower than normal. Consequently, where pertinent, reference in the 
discussion is made to the situation expected for normal and high-production 
years . 

A survey was conducted, by telephone or personal interview, of technical 
or purchasing personnel of 53 organizations involved in producing or using the 
alloys covered by this study. This was done to obtain data for this report 
and to verify derived data and conclusions . The organizations contacted are 
listed in appendix D. This list is not totally inclusive but is a representa- 
tive sample of the industry. 

Reliability 

Most of the data contained herein are estimated or derived, since there 
is no mandatory reporting of this type of information by producers, manufac- 
turers, or scrap processors. Also, there are significant differences in pro- 
duction practices and terminology between various companies. Furthermore, in 
those reports that are available, there is considerable variation in the alloy 
industry and product nomenclature. Industry contacts were asked to give an 
overall assessment of their industry. The responses showed a 20-percent range 
in the estimates of scrap generated and utilized. Based on the variability 
found in the estimates of the quantity of product produced in each alloy 
class, an error of ±20 percent was estimated. 

Rounding 

Numbers contained in the data tables were rounded to the nearest tenth 
(generally percent or million pounds). Thus, some small inconsistencies may 
appear in the data tables due to rounding error. 

Assumptions 

Several assumptions were made with respect to the disposition of prompt 
industrial and obsolete scrap . Most of these assumptions were based on 
responses to our industry survey. They represent widely accepted industry 
views on scrap materials disposition on which specific data were not available. 



In the absence of quantitative data from scrap recyclers, it was assumed that 
only "identified" clean, solid scrap would be purchased by the alloy producer 
to make up the "purchased scrap" portion of the melt charge. Solids would be 
preferred over turnings for this purpose. It was also assumed that scrap was 
only recycled within the same alloy class. This was done to simplify the 
analysis, although some interchange takes place. The effects of this assump- 
tion on the results of the model are discussed in a later section. 

It was assumed that half of the remaining solid prompt industrial and 
obsolete scrap was exported and half was recycled within the United States as 
a charge material for stainless steel, cast iron, and low-alloy steel. The 
assumption that chromium-containing alloy scrap is exported was substantiated 
by study responses and by inference from Bureau of Mines statistics on related 
generic alloy classes. 

It was assumed that only the highest quality chromium-containing alloy 
scrap not being fully utilized by U.S. industries would be exported. There- 
fore, it was assumed that essentially all of the prompt industrial scrap turn- 
ings are recycled to the U.S. industries mentioned above. It was further 
assumed that grindings and mixed melt shop scrap (sometimes referred to as 
"refinery-grade scrap") are reprocessed for use in the U.S. steel industry 
because they are unsuitable for export or direct use in the melt charge and 
require special refining. 

Information Gaps 

The largest single information gap occurs with respect to the disposition 
of the large quantity of prompt industrial and obsolete scrap which is handled 
by the scrap dealers, reprocessors, and secondary refiners. This is a highly 
competitive industry, and quantitative responses to our inquiries were not 
forthcoming. Clearly, a broadly based survey of this industry would fill a 
major information gap. A representative of the National Association of 
Recycling Industries stated that the association did not keep separate sta- 
tistics on the materials covered by this study. 

RESULTS 

Alloy Production 

Estimates of 1976 production of primary product were made for the six 
alloy classes defined in table 1. These production figures are the baseline 
data used to calculate the additional data on raw materials and scrap genera- 
tion and disposition needed to complete the model. Estimates of production 
for individual alloys within each alloy class are listed in tables 2 to 7. 
Estimates are shown only for the most widely used alloys. Although the 
category other may in some cases represent a major portion of production, 
this classification includes many alloys that are produced in relatively 
small quantities. 

To assess the historical trends in alloy production and the quantity of 
obsolete scrap available, data were acquired on primary product sold over the 
period 1958-78. 



TABLE 2. - Estimated production of primary product for investment 
cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys in 1976^ 



Alloy 


designation 


Quantity, 
million pounds 


Percent of 
subtotal 


Nickel-base alloys: 
Alloys 71 3C and 7i: 
B-1900+Hf 


JLC 


5.0 
2.0 
2.0 
1.5 
1.0 
6.0 


28.6 




11.4 


RENE 77 


11.4 


INCONEL alloy 738 


8.6 


INCONEL alloy 718 


5.7 


Other 


34.3 


Subtotal 


17.5 


100.0 


Cobalt-base alloys: 

X-40 


2.0 
1.0 
1.0 
1.75 


34.8 


FSX-414 

WI-52 


17.4 
17.4 


Other 


30.4 


Subtotal 


5.75 


100.0 


Total 


23.25 


NAp 



NAp Not applicable. 

^Alloy compositions contained in table C-1. 

TABLE 3. - Estimated production of primary product for hardfacing 
cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys in 1976 



Alloy designation 



Quantity, 
million pounds 



Percent of 
total 



Nickel-base cast rod^ . 
Nickel-base powder^... 
Cobalt-base cast rod^v 
Cobalt-base powder^ ... 
Total 




8,1 



100.0 



^Average composition, in percent: 59.5 Ni, 16 Cr, 8 Mo, 4 W, 5 Fe, 4 Si, 3 B, 

0.5 C. 
^Average composition, in percent: 52.8 Co, 5 Ni, 29 Cr, 2 Mo, 6 W, 3 Fe, 

1 Si, 1.2 C. 

TABLE 4. - Estimated production of primary product for wrought 
nickel- and cobalt-base alloys in 19761 



Alloy designation 



Quantity, 
million pounds 



Percent of 
total 



WASPALOY , 

INCONEL alloy 718 , 

INCONEL alloy 600 series , 

INCONEL alloys 750, 751 , 

INCONEL alloy 700 and UDIMET alloys 500, 700, 

RENE 41, 95 , 

HASTELLOY alloy X , 

HASTELLOY alloy C-276 , 

Other 



Total, 




100.0 



lAlloy compositions contained in table C-2 . 



TABLE 5. - Estimated production of primary product for wrought 

nickel-iron-base alloys in 1976^ 



Alloy designation 


Quantity, 
million pounds 


Percent of 
total 


INCOLOY alloys 800, 801, 802, 825 

INCOLOY alloys 901, 903 

A-286 


16 
10 

5 
10 

5 


34.8 
21.7 
10.9 


ARMCO 20-45-5, V-57, N-155, RA-330, PYROMET 860. 
Other 


21.7 
10.9 


Total 


46 


100.0 



^Alloy compositions contained in table C-3. 

TABLE 6. - Estimated production of primary product for 
heat-resistant alloy castings in 1976^ 



Alloy designation 


Quantity, 
million pounds 


Percent of 
total 


HK 


20.2 
11.2 
8.0 
3.7 
2.1 
2.1 
1.5 
1.1 
1.1 
1.1 
1.1 


38 


HH 


21 


HT 


15 


HC 


7 


HP 


4 


HU 


4 


HN 


3 


HL 


2 


HF . 


2 


HD 


2 


Other 


2 


Total 


53.2 


100 



■^ Alloy compositions contained in table C-4. 

TABLE 7 . - Estimated production of primary product for 
corrosion-resistant alloy castings in 1976^ 



Alloy designation 


Quantity, 
million pounds 


Percent of 
total 


CF-8M 


51.8 
11.0 
9.9 
6.6 
6.6 
3.4 
3.3 
3.3 
2.2 
2.2 
9.9 


47 


CF-8 


10 


CA-15 


9 


CN-7M 


6 


CB-30 


6 


CA-6NM 


3 


CF-3M 


3 


CD-4MCU 


3 


CF-8C 


2 


CA-40 


2 


Other 


9 


Total 


110.2 


100 



^Alloy compositions contained in table C-4, 



10 



For nickel-, cobalt-, and nickel-iron-base alloys, no data are available 
on historical production. Most relevant are the nickel consumption data from 
the Bureau of Mines Mineral Industry Survey ( 10) , but even these present prob- 
lems, since nickel consumption is reported for various alloy classes that are 
not precisely defined and that do not correspond to the alloy classes used in 
this survey. In addition, the alloy classifications used by the Mineral 
Industry Survey have changed three times over the past 20 years. This made 
it difficult to estimate historical production data for the alloy classes 
covered for this study. Instead the nickel consumption data for 1958-78 for 
the Mineral Industry Survey alloy classifications that are most nearly related 
to the four nickel-, cobalt- and nickel-iron-base alloy classes covered in 
this study were used to estimate alloy production figures. These data are 
given in table 8 and plotted in figure 2. It was assumed that the primary 
product growth rate for these four alloy classes followed the same growth rate 
as the nickel consumption statistics. This annual average growth rate is 2.1 
percent over the period 1958-78. 

TABLE 8. - Annual primary nickel consumption (10) for superalloys, other 
nickel and nickel alloys, cast nickel alloys, wrought nickel 
alloys, high-temperature and electrical resistance alloys, 
and nonferrous alloys, 1958-78 

(Million pounds) 



Year 


Super- 


Other 1 


Cast nickel 


Wrought nickel 


HT and 


Nonferrous 3 


Total 




alloys 




alloys 


alloys 


ER2 






1958 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


14.5 


28.5 


43.0 


1959 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


20.8 


40.4 


61.2 


1960 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


19.8 


42.3 


62.1 


1961 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


21.7 


45.7 


67.4 


1962 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


24.4 


43.2 


67.6 


1963 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


26.1 


38.1 


64.2 


1964 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


28.9 


35.4 


64.3 


1965 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


34.4 


56.7 


91.1 


1966 


NC 


NC 


NC 


"^91. 5 


10.8 


NC 


102.3 


1967 


NC 


NC 


7.1 


74.2 


8.6 


NC 


89.9 


1968 


NC 


NC 


13.2 


66.8 


7.8 


NC 


87.8 


1969 


22.8 


52.7 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


75.5 


1970 


21.8 


70.1 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


91.9 


1971 


13.5 


53.6 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


67.1 


1972 


22.2 


56.0 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


78.2 


1973 


22.6 


74.9 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


97.5 


1974 


22.2 


85.8 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


108.0 


1975 


11.4 


72.3 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


83.7 


1976 


15.5 


61.6 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


77.1 


1977 


19.6 


60.7 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


80.3 


1978 


27.1 


76.1 


NC 


NC 


NC 


NC 


103.2 



NC Not categorized. 

^ Other nickel and nickel alloys . 

^High-temperature and electrical resistance alloys . 

^Nonferrous alloys less 15.8 percent for copper base 

^Cast and wrought. 



alloys 



11 



150 



o 

2 
3 
O 
Q. 



100 



50 







X - NICKEL CONSUMPTION FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE ALLOYS (5.; 

D- WROUGHT NICKEL AND COBALT BASE. 

A-WROUGHT NICKEL-IRON BASE- 

V - INVESTMENT CAST NICKEL AND COBALT BASE. 

O- HARDFACING CAST NICKEL AND COBALT BASE. 




-V- 






1960 



1970 



1980 



1990 



2000 



FIGURE 2. 



Annual primary nickel consumption for high-temperature alloys, 1958-78 (10). 
Estimated primary production growth curves for investment cast, hardfacing 
cast, and wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys (dashed lines). 



The quantity of primary product produced for heat- and corrosion- 
resistant alloy castings was compiled by the American Iron and Steel Institute 
and based on estimates provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (,9) is given 
in table 9. Figure 3 shows the production of primary product for heat- and 
corrosion-resistant alloy castings over the 20-year period 1958-78 and indi- 
cates probable trends for the near future. 



12 



TABLE 9. - Annual primary production of heat- and corrosion-resistant 

alloy castings, 1958-78 

(Million pounds) 



Year 


Heat 


Corrosion 


Total 


Year 


Heat 


Corrosion 


Total 




resistant 


resistant 






resistant 


resistant 




1958 


38.7 


41.3 


80.0 


1970 


47.2 


97.8 


145.0 


1959 


36.1 


36.2 


72.3 


1971 


42.5 


88.1 


130.6 


1960 


35.0 


36.8 


71.8 


1972 


36.6 


75.7 


112.3 


1961 


33.5 


40.9 


74.4 


1973 


39.9 


82.6 


122.5 


1962 


37.3 


44.9 


82.2 


1974 


69.4 


72.6 


142.0 


1963 


40.8 


49.1 


89.9 


1975 


65.2 


100.1 


165.3 


1964 


41.4 


60.0 


101.4 


1976 


53.2 


110.2 


163.4 


1965 


41.1 


85.2 


126.3 


1977 


45.2 


93.6 


138.8 


1966 


55.8 


115.7 


171.5 


1978 


51.8 


107.4 


159.2 


1967 


52.5 


108.7 


161.2 











Source: Reference 9_ and Inco 
available) . 



internal reports (data for 1968 and 1969 not 



300 



6 - TOTAL 

O- CORROSION RESISTANT 

D-HEAT RESISTANT 



CO 200 
o 

z 

O 
Q. 



00 








J_ 



X 



_L 



I960 



1970 



1980 



1990 



2000 



FIGURE 3. - Annual primary production for heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy castings, 
1958-78 (9). 



13 



Production Efficiencies 

Based on responses to this study, "production efficiency" for raw materi- 
als to primary product and for primary product to finished product was esti- 
mated. These values are listed for each alloy class in table 10. 

TABLE 10. - Production efficiencies by alloy class for raw materials 

to primary product and for primary product 
to finished product 



Alloy class 



Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base, 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base. 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 

Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings, 



Primary 

product 

efficiency^ 




Finished 

product 

efficiency^ 



40 
60 
54 
54 
98 
98 



^Ratio of primary product to raw material melted. 

^Ratio of finished product to primary product expressed in percent. 

The quantities of primary product produced for each alloy class (taken 
from tables 2 to 7) are listed in table 11, column 2. Using these data and 
the estimates of production efficiencies (table 10) , the raw materials melted 
(column 1) and finished product produced (column 3) were derived and are shown 
in table 11. 

TABLE 11. - Estimated production by alloy class in 1976^ 

(Million pounds) 



Alloy class 


Raw materials 
melted 


Primary 
product 


Finished 
product 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base... 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base... 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 

Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


29.1 

10.3 

180.0 

92.0 

102.3 

234.5 


23.3 
8.1 
90.0 
46.0 
53.2 
110.2 


9.3 

4.8 

48.6 

24.8 

52.2 

107.9 


Total 


648.2 


330.8 


247.6 



^Derived from tables 2 to 7 and table 10. 



Melt Charge Makeup and Scrap Utilization 

In addition to production efficiencies, information on melt charge 
make-up was obtained through our study responses. Based on these responses, 
estimates were made of the percentage of "primary metal," home scrap, and 
purchased scrap used in the melt charge make-up for each of the six alloy 
classes. These percentages are given in table 12. Also given in this table 
are the quantities of raw materials that go into the melt charge make-up. 



14 



These quantities were calculated from the data of table 11 and the percentage esti- 
mates as shown in table 12. 



TABLE 12. - Melt charge raw materials 





Primary metal 


Home scrap 


Purchased scrap 


Alloy class 


Million 
pounds 


Percent 1 


Million 
pounds 


Percent 


Million 
pounds 


Percent 


Investment cast nickel- and 
cobalt-base 

Hardfacing cast nickel- and 
cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt base.... 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 

Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings. 


13.0 

6.5 
72.0 
36.8 
22.5 
54.0 


45 

63 
40 
40 
22 
23 


2.4 

0.8 

84.6 

43.2 

41.0 

105.6 


8 

8 
47 
47 
40 
45 


13.7 

3.0 
23.4 
12.0 
38.8 
74.9 


47 

29 
13 
13 
38 
32 


Total^ 


204.8 


32 


277.6 


43 


165.8 


25 



■^Percent of total raw materials for melt charge. 
Grand total: 648.2 million pounds. 

To assess the economic forces affecting melt charge make-up, "producer" and 
selected "merchant" prices were obtained for primary metals and chromium-containing 
alloy scrap. This information is shown in tables 13 and 14. For comparison, pri- 
mary metals and scrap quotations are shown for February and May 1979. Note that the 
primary metals and scrap markets were extremely volatile in mid-1979 owing to gener- 
ally strong demand for metals and shortages of some elements . Cobalt and molybdenum 
prices were particularly volatile during this period. In addition to the quoted 
scrap prices shown in table 14, the metal value contained in these alloys was calcu- 
lated based on the producer price for the contained elements . These values are 
shown for comparison. 

TABLE 13. - Published producer prices of various forms of chromium 
and other selected primary metals in February and 
May 1979 (10,000-pound minimum lot size) 



Material 



Price per pound, dollars 



1976 range 



February 1979 



May 1979 



Low-carbon f errochromiuml 

High-carbon f errochromium-'- 

Chromium metal 

Nickel pellets 

Ferronickel^ 

Iron squares (4-inch) 

High-quality steel scrap 

Cobalt , electrolytic 

Molybdenum pellets 

Titanium sponge 

Aluminum ingo t 

Tantalum powder , 

Columbium pellets , 

^er pound of chromium. 
Per pound of nickel. 
^"Merchant" price — $37.50 per pound. 
^"Merchant" price — $32.00 per pound, 



0.85- 
.41- 



1.00 

.50 

2.44 

2.20- 2.41 

2.10- 2.34 

.11- .13 

.02 

4.00- 4.90 

5.60- 6.85 

2.70 

.41- .48 

35.40-48.00 

18.00-25.00 



0.75 

.42 

3.10 

1.93 

1.75 

.17 

.06 

25.00 

10.51 

4.00 

.56 

67.35 

55.00 



0.85 

.46 

3.20 

2.85 

2.80 

.17 

.05 

325.00 

^11.15 

6.50 

.58 

82.50 

55.00 



15 



TABLE 14. - Prices quoted for identified solid seraph and calculated 
metal value for several alloys in February and May 1979 
(10,000 pound minimum lot size) 





Alloy class 


Price per pound, dollars 




February 1979 


May 1979 


Alloy designation 


Quoted 

scrap 

price 


Calculated 
metal 
value^ 


Quoted 

scrap 

price 


Calculated 
metal 
value^ 


INCONEL alloy 718 
WASPALOY 


Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 
do 


2.50 
5.50 
1.75 
2.75 

5.00 


2.72 
5.54 
1.61 
2.63 

8.57 


5.98 
8.50 
2.76 
5.04 

9.98 


3.26 
6 35 


INCONEL alloy 600 
Alloy 713C 

B-1900+Hf 


do 

Investment cast nickel- and 
cobalt-base. 
do 


2.34 
3.35 

9.96 



"•This material was classed as vacuum grade by the scrap dealer. 

-Based on producer prices for the contained elements as pure metals or master alloys. 



Scrap Generation 

The survey revealed three sources of alloy scrap generation. Home and prompt 
industrial scrap is generated by alloy producers and users during the raw material 
melting to primary production phase and the primary product to finished product 
phase of the production cycle. Scrap from both of these sources is generated rela- 
tively soon (less than 1 year) after the raw material melting operation. This scrap 
is assumed to be available for recycling in the same production year. Therefore, 
the quantity of available home and prompt industrial scrap can be calculated from 
production figures. Obsolete scrap, on the other hand, is generated long after 
finished product manufacturing. This form of scraj) is the result of parts and equip- 
ment replacement and service wastage. Obsolescence may occur any time after manu- 
facture and will depend on the design lifetime of the part, maintenance schedules, 
and the nature of the service. For the purpose of this study, based on responses to 
our survey, life cycles of 5 years for investment cast and hardfacing cast nickel- 
and cobalt-base alloys and 10 years for the other classes of alloys covered by this 
study were estimated. 

The survey information and the experience of the International Nickel Co. with 
industry practices made it possible to estimate the proportions of the various forms 
of scrap (solids, turnings, grindings, skulls, spills, slags, dusts, scales, wastes) 
generated from each source. The quantity and form of home scrap generated in 1976 
are given in table 15. This same information is given in table 16 for prompt indus- 
trial scrap. Note that these data were derived from estimated production figures 
and efficiencies and estimates as to the form and relative proportions of scrap 
generated thereby. 

Table 17 shows the quantity and form of obsolete scrap which will be available, 
in the future, when finished products produced in 1976 from the chromium-containing 
alloys covered in this study are removed from service. The quantity of obsolete 
scrap available for use in 1976 was calculated using historical primary production 
data (fig. 2-3) as the base. Linear regression analyses were performed to determine 
the average annual primary production for 1958-78. It was assumed that the rate of 
obsolescence has a statistically normal distribution based on the average service 
life. Consequently, the average quantity of finished product produced in the year 
corresponding to start of the product life cycle was used to estimate the quantity 
of currently available obsolete scrap. These quantities are also given in table 17. 



16 



Note that the data used in subsequent sections on scrap utilization in 1976 are for 
currently available obsolete scrap. 

TABLE 15. - Quantity of home scrap generated in 1976, 
by scrap form and alloy clas s 

(million pounds) 



Alloy class 


Solids 


Turnings 


Grind ings 


Mixed 1 


Waste 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base. 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base. 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 

Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


2.4 

.8 

79.2 

40.4 

40.0 

103.3 




5.4 
2.8 
1.0 
2.3 


0.8 
.4 

2.7 
.7 

1.0 

2.3 


1.0 
.4 

1.0 
.7 

6.1 
14.1 


1.7 
.6 
1.7 
1.4 
1.0 
2.3 


Total^ 


266.1 


11.5 


7.8 


23.3 


8.7 



■'^ Mixed melt shop scrap . 

^Grand total: 317.4 million pounds. 



TABLE 16. - Quantity of prompt industrial scrap generated 
in 1976, by scrap form and alloy class 

(Million pounds) 



Alloy class 


Solids 


Turnings 


Grindings 


Waste 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel— iron— base 


11.3 


12.6 

6.4 






0.7 
1.5 
18.9 
9.7 
1.0 
2.3 


1.6 
1.5 
7.2 
3.7 




0.4 

.3 

2.7 

1.4 


Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 






Total^ 


30.3 


34.1 


14.0 


4.8 



■"^Grand total: 83.2 million pounds, 

TABLE 17 . - Quantity of obsolete scrap represented by finished product 
produced in 1976 and obsolete scrap available in 1976, 
by scrap form and alloy class 

(Million pounds) 



Alloy class 


Future obsolete 
scrap •'• 


Current obsolete 
seraph 




Solids 


Grindings 


Waste 


Solids 


Grindings 


Waste 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 


8.4 
2.4 
42.3 
21.6 
44.0 
77.4 




2.7 
1.4 
3.1 
7.0 


0.9 
2.4 
3.6 
1.8 
5.1 
23.5 


7.6 
2.2 
33.5 
17.1 
35.3 
48.5 




2.1 
1.1 
2.5 
4.4 


0.8 
2.1 
2.8 
1.5 


Heat— resistant alloy castings 


4.1 


Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


14.7 


Total^ 


196.1 


14.2 


37.3 


144.2 


10.1 


26.0 



^Represents scrap that will occur when finished products produced in 1976 are removed 

from service through repair, service wastage, or dismantling. 
^Represents scrap available for use in 1976 derived from earlier years' production. 
^Grand totals: 247.6 million pounds of future obsolete scrap and 180.3 million 

pounds of current obsolete scrap . 



17 



Scrap Export 

Data on exports and imports of nickel waste and nickel alloy in 1965-78 
were available from the Bureau of Mines (10) and are given in table 18. Some 
of the material included in this compilation is not included in the alloy 
classes covered by the current study; however, there is a large degree of 
overlap. Thus, these statistics serve as a useful cross-check on the results 
of the present study regarding alloy scrap exports. 

TABLE 18. - Quantity of nickel waste and scrap exported and 

imported annually, 1965-78 (10) 

(Million pounds) 



Year 


Exports 


Imports 


Net export 


1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 


13.4 
11.7 
27.8 
30.5 
34.2 
17.7 
11.2 
14.9 
12.5 
12.5 
16.3 
31.9 
16.8 
9.3 


4.6 
3.7 
4.4 
7.8 
6.4 
5.2 
2.7 
4.6 
5.3 
7.4 
4.7 
4.7 
6.4 
7.4 


8.8 

8.0 

23.4 

22.7 

27.8 


1970 

1971 


12.5 
8.5 


1972 


10.3 


1973 


7.2 


1974 

1975 


5.1 
11.6 


1976 


27.2 


1977 


10.4 


1978 


1.9 


Average 


18.6 


5.4 


13.2 



DISCUSSION 



Materials Balance 



The data on primary and finished product production, distribution of raw 
materials for melting, and types of scrap generated and utilized for the U.S. 
alloy producing and using industries covered in this study are presented as 
materials balance flow charts in figures 4 through 9. These figures show the 
form of material and scrap and its flow from the raw material melting stage 
through primary and finished product production to component obsolescence. 
Figure 10 shows an overall weighted average material balance flow chart for 
the industries covered in this study. 

Use Patterns of the Alloy-Producing Industry 

The alloy-producing industry use patterns shown in figures 4 through 10 
have been in existence for at least the past 10 years. This study revealed 
no significant evidence that these use patterns will change in the near future, 
These alloy producers favor the use of the maximum amount of home scrap (43 
percent) of the "same alloy" composition supplemented with purchased scrap 



18 





i 
































X 

o 
.n 




' 














"o 




UJ Q- 

o 5 

^ c/) 


CO 

d 
ex. 








O 

z 

tr 

o 

H 


in 

in 
5; 




X T3 

o ■■; 
















is on left side 
ounds is on r 
sit shop scrap 




























en 
9 

_i 
o 

CO 


CO 

b 

CO 






en 
o 

Q 
2 
CC 
CO 


in 

in 
2; 






























- ^ E 




Q 
UJ 

CO a. 
< < 
I cr 
o o 
cr CO 

Q- 


o 

Cfl 
C\J 




_J 

5 < 

< cr 

(T UJ 

< 


to 

CJ 

o 
o 






>- 
q: 
< 

q: 


o 

O 

o 






Q 

UJ 

X 

en 

2 
U- 


1- 

o 

3 
Q 
O 
(E 
Q- 


00 


«D O -D 


















n -5 -?: 
















" CN CO 






^ 














































— 


UJ 

1- 

C/) 

1 


ID 

ci 






UJ 

1 


rn 

ro 






UJ PJ 

1- 
cn 

1 " 

> ro 

00 


















































CM 

in 
ro 

(0 


























— 


ro 
O 
UJ 
X 














































CO 

2 
Q 

■z 

C3 


■9 

6 






W cO 
Q 

00 













a> 




(/) 




D 




_Q 




-1- 




D 




_Q 




O 




U 


• 




^M 


-n 


•— 


r 


_) 


o 




' 


u 


fl> 




_ii: 


^ 


o 


o 


c 


M- 


.,_ 


w 


o 


o 


u 


^ 




0> 


u> 




c 


o 


u 


E 


o 


(/) 


-n 


>- 


L. 


u 


o 


~~ 


X 


a 






LO 




LU 




Q^ 




ID 




O 




LL 









1 






























O 
-Q 




f 
















'o 




UJ 

o 

X 


Q. 

< 

cr 
o 

en 


00 
CO 






X -a 






















is on left side 
jounds is on r 
elt shop scrap 
















tn 

Q 

_i 
o 

CO 


00 
00 








CO 

g 

_j 
o 
en 


ro 
en 

ro 






























o o -u 
u :^ Qj 

Q_ -S -5^ 




Q 
UJ 
10 

< 

X 

o 

cr 

3 


a 
<t 
cr 
o 

CO 


ro 
r^ 

^3- 




5 

<I 

tr 


-J 00 

< 
er 

UJ 

1- 

^ o 






>- K 

5 Q 


m 
ro 

00 

O 
CO 






Q 

UJ 
X 
en 

2 
u. 


t- 
o 

3 

a 
o 
q: 

Q. 


ro 

&i 

OJ 
lO 




















^ 












- tN n 






^ 














































^^ 


UJ 
V- 

en 
< 

5 


1^ 






UJ 

t- 
en 
< 

5 


ci 
in 






UJ d 
1— 
en 
< 

rO 
















































>- 

cr 
< 

cr 


CO 

_i 
< 

t- 

UJ 


O 

ro 

in 
























ro 
O 
UJ 
X 

s 


O 

in 

ro 






CO 

o 

2 
Q 

2 

cr 

C3 


lO 
IT) 




























































en 
o 

2 
Q 

2 

E 
en 


r^ 
d 

in 

OJ 






CO 

o 

2 
2 

cr 

3 
1- 


r^ 
6 

in 

00 






■a- 

t^ 00 

a 
-J 
o 





















>> 

O 



w 
o 



O 

_Q 

O 

U 

-a 

c 

D 



(U 

_iii 

U 



+- o 



w 

E D 

i i 



LU 
O 



19 




— «i o 















(C 






III 


_ 






1- 






_ 


< 






^ 






« 


Jd 






in 


^ 






w 








^ 








n 












:=: 








rr 


in 






o 


-^ 








a> 






(n 


— 






a 


CM 






1 












o 








0) 


r\j 





a 

E 

w 
>> 

o 



(U 

w 
o 

c 
o 






i- o 



LU 

3 
O 




4) O -D 

U ■- (1) 













«i) 






III 


rO 






1- 








0) 

< 






* 






^ 


_^ 






tn 


h- 




o 


rvi 






2 






*■ 










(T 


in 






O 


~ 






(n 


— 






9 

1 


t 












<) 








(/) 







o 



(U 

w 

o 



O 

o . 

U 4- 

c u 



-^ o 

"c (/) 
en 'i- 

S: E 



NO 

LU 
O 



5?i;_Q7n n 



20 








CJ 








o 




>- 


(/) 


T 




(T 


1 






< 


^ 








q: 


UJ 







Q 

2 

cr 

CD - 



C/) 


ro 


O 


OJ 


2 




2 

or 






-) 




H 


- 



— m O 







t „ E 


Q l- 
UJ o 

X r) 

CO Q 

ig 

U. Q. 


o 




4) O -D 
U ■- <D 

fe - .2 

CL S S 










in 

UJ to 
1- <\i 
irt 
< 

^ o 
























in o 

Q 

O 1^ 
















9 r- 

_J 
O 
<^ ro 

lO 









J2 
a 

k. 

o 

E 
(/) 

c 
w 

D 
U 

>. 

o 



c 




o 








w 




w 




0) 


• 


r 


3 


o 




w 


() 


o 






^ 


o 


o 


U 


*4- 



o 
LU 

O 



UJ Q. 


o 
o 







Q 




05 


III 




CU 


CO 


a 




< 


< 




I 


er 




(T 


CO 




-) 






CL 




00 



5 -J 

E ^ 


OJ 

in 
pj 

CM 















CO 


C\J 




_) 


o 


5 


< 




< 
tr 


tr 

UJ 

1- 






5 


o 




CO 9 
o 

2 
2 

cr 

3 






u cj 

X u 

CO Q 

2 O 

— tr 

CJ. Q. 





o 




w 


X 


<D 




O 


o 






L* 




j_ 




Q> 


n 








■D 


C 


Q. 

O 


O 

E 


^ 


o 


u 


(/) 


fl) 


— 


a 


o> 




l/l 


o 


c 


c 


-o 






o 


c 


»/) 


^^ 


l/l 


3 


^ 


w 


~ 


O. 


0) 


o 


r 


r 




o 


a> 


o 


-o 




u 




0) 
X 


o 




c 




a 


+- 


w 


r) 


0) 




^ 


u 


D 


^ 


O 


o 



X ::;i 



oo 



LU 

cm 

ZD 
O 



21 



PRIMARY 
METALS 



PURCHASED 
SCRAP 



HOME 
SCRAP 



Wuif 



RAW 
MATERIALS 



GRINDINGS 
1.2 7.8 



WASTE 
.3 8.7 



SOLIDS 
41.1 266.1 



TURNINGS 
1.8 11.5 



PRIMARY 
PRODUCT 



SOLIDS 
1.7 10.9 



TURNINGS 
4.5 29.3 



GRINDINGS 
1.9 12.5 



WASTE 
.7 4.8 



SOLIDS 
3 19.4 



(25 percent) of the same 
alloy, if possible, or alloy 
class . This is done primar- 
ily for the sake of economy 
and materials availability. 
Because of its intrinsic 
metal value and ready avail- 
ability, home scrap is equal 
to primary metal as a melt 
stock. Under noinnal eco- 
nomic conditions, purchased 
scrap is priced at about 
80 percent of the primary 
metals price and has compar- 
able availability. This may 
not be true for complex 
alloys produced in small 
quantity (those in the other 
category) . Such alloys will 
require more primary metal 
because some alloy scrap is 
less available. On the 
whole, however, alloy pro- 
ducers use all their suit- 
able home scrap and as much 
purchased scrap as is 
allowed by metallurgical 
considerations . 

Use of a substantial 
quantity (32 percent, or 
about 200 million pounds) 
of primary metals in the 
raw material charge is 
dictated primarily by metal- 
lurgical considerations. In the cast and wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 
alloy-producing industries, larger percentages of primary metals are used 
in the raw materials charge. The main reason for this is to minimize the 
pickup of iron and other "deleterious trace elements," such as lead and tin, 
small quantities of which are harmful to high-temperature properties. For 
example, in investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys, about 45 percent 
of the raw materials charge is primary metals, as compared to about 22 percent 
for heat-resistant alloy castings. About 63 percent of the charge is primary 
metal for the cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys used for hardfacing owing 
to unavailability of scrap of suitable composition. 



TURNINGS 
I 6.3 



FINISHED 
PRODUCT 

















1 


' 


' 




y 




' 






SOLIDS 
30 196.1 




GRINDINGS 
2.2 14.2 




WASTE 
5.8 37.3 





Percent is on left side of box« 
Million pounds is on right side of box 
Mixed melt shop scrap^, 



FIGURE 10. - Overall materials flow circuit. 



In developing the model, it was assiomed that scrap not recycled within 
an alloy class is downgraded or exported. This was done to simplify the cal- 
culations and because it was felt that the results would not be significantly 
altered. In some cases, this assumption is true; that is, cast nickel-base 
alloys cannot be readily used in the other alloy classes because of the 



22 



NICKEL BASE 



COBALT BASE 




INVESTMENT 
CASTING 



HARDFACING 



HARDFACING 



WROUGHT 
NICKEL 



piresence of undesirable ele- 
ments. A schematic diagram 
indicating a likely pattern 
of interclass scrap flow is 
shown in figure 11. This 
diagram indicates a net flow 
of scrap into the hardfacing 
cast nickel- and cobalt-base 
alloy categories and a prob- 
able inflow of stainless 
steel scrap for melting 
heat- and corrosion- 
resistant castings. Quanti- 
fication of this hypotheti- 
cal flow pattern will 
require a more detailed 
industry survey. 

It is unlikely that the 
superalloy and heat- and 
corrosion-resistant alloy 
casting industries will sig- 
nificantly increase the 
average percentage of scrap 
utilized in raw material 
charges. A major break- 
through in alloy melting and 
refining technology will be 
needed to allow recycling of 
additional high-alloy scrap. 

There is a trend in 
these industries for the 
alloy producers to buy 
prompt industrial and obso- 
lete scrap directly from 
fabricators , manufacturers , 
and end users rather than 
obtaining this scrap indi- 
rectly through scrap dealers. 
Several companies have 
recently set up scrap reproc- 
essing facilities to improve their utilization of scrap. Others are investi- 
gating processes to increase the efficiency of recycling home scrap material 
presently unsuitable for direct remelting. The trend is taking place because 
producers wish to develop more assured supplies of raw materials in time of 
severe primary metals shortage. While these new practices change the flow 
pattern of the purchased scrap component of the raw materials charge, they 
will not affect the relative quantity used. 



WROUGHT 
NICKEL-IRON 




HEAT RESISTANT 
ALLOY CASTINGS 



CORROSION RESISTANT 
ALLOY CASTINGS 



FIGURE 11. - Schematic diagram showing interclass scrap flow. 



23 



Scrap Utilization 

The disposition of the scrap generated in 1976 by the industries covered 
in this study was estimated from the general assessments given in response to 
inquiries or key assumptions where information was not available. Four cate- 
gories of scrap utilization were defined: "remelted," "lost," "downgraded," 
and "exported." The quantities of scrap distributed in these four categories 
are given in tables 19-22. Each category is discussed separately below. For 
convenience in comparing all four scrap utilization categories, this informa- 
tion has been summarized in table 23. 

TABLE 19. - Scrap requirements for remelting, by alloy class 

and scrap form and origin 

(Million pounds) 





Scrap of same alloy class 


Scrap of 
other 
alloy 

classes 




Alloy class 


Home 


Prompt 
industrial 


Obsolete 
solids 


Scrap 
totals 




Solids 


Turnings 


Solids 


Turnings 1 




Investment cast 
nickel- and cobalt- 
base 


2.4 

0.8 

79.2 

40.4 

40.0 

103.3 





5.4 
2.8 
1.0 
2.3 


11.3 



5.4 

2.7 








3.0 





1.0 

2.3 


2.4 



18.0 

9.3 

35.3 

48.5 










^2.5 

^24.1 


16.1 


Hardfacing cast 
nickel- and cobalt- 
base 


3.8 


Wrought nickel- and 
cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron- 
base 


108.0 
55.2 


Heat-resistant alloy 
castincs 


79.8 


Corrosion-resistant 
alloy castings 


180.5 


Total "^ 


266.1 


11.5 


19.4 


6.3 


113.5 


26.6 


443.4 



•'•Includes grindings. 

^Requirement for average 24 percent chromium-20.5 percent nickel-balance iron 

alloy may be made up using wrought stainless steel and/or wrought nickel- 

and nickel-iron-base alloy scrap. 
^Requirement for average 18.6 percent chromium-8.9 percent nickel-balance iron 

alloy may be made up using wrought stainless steel scrap. 
^Grand total: 443.4 million pounds. 



Remelted 



Table 19 shows the sources of scrap for remelting by alloy class and 
scrap form. This information was derived from the scrap source data in 
tables 15 through 17 and the information on scrap use preferences received 
from previous inquiries. Note that in all alloy classes, except hardfacing 
nickel- and cobalt-base alloys, it was concluded that solid scrap is utilized 
to fill out the necessary scrap segment of the melt charge. In the case of 



24 



the hardfacing nickel- and cobalt-base alloy industry, there is a lack of suitable 
solid scrap and available turnings and grindings are therefore recycled as scrap 
feedstock. As noted previously, some solid scrap from other cobalt-base alloy 
classes may be used in the raw materials charge. 

TABLE 20. - Sources of lost scrap, by alloy class and scrap origin 

(Million pounds of contained metal) 



Alloy class 


Home 


Prompt 
industrial 


Obsoletel 


Total 


Contained 
chromium^ 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 

Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


1.7 
.6 
1.7 
1.4 
1.0 
2.3 


0.4 

.3 

2.7 

1.4 






0.8 
2.1 
2.8 
1.5 
4.1 
14.7 


2.9 
3.0 
7.2 
4.3 
5.1 
17.0 


0.4 
.7 

1.3 
.6 

1.2 

3.2 


Total 


8.7 


4.8 


26.0 


39.5 


7.4 



iRepresents current obsolete scrap available for use in 1976 derived from earlier 

years' production. 
^Calculated from average compositions of table 25. 

TABLE 21 . - Sources of scrap downgraded, by alloy class and scrap form and origin 

(Million pounds) 





Home 


Prompt industrial 


Obsolete2 


Total 


Contained 


Alloy class 


Grind- 


Mixed 1 


Solids 


Turn- 


Grind- 


Solids 


Grind- 


chromium^ 




ings 






ings 


ings 




ings 






Investment cast 




















nickel- and 




















cobalt-base 


0.7 


1.0 





18.9 


1.6 


2.6 





6.6 


0.9 


Hardfacing cast 




















nickel- and 




















cobalt-base 


.4 


.4 











2.2 





3.0 


.7 


Wrought nickel- and 




















cobalt-base 


2.7 


1.0 


3.6 


18.9 


7.2 


7.8 


2.1 


43.3 


7.9 


Wrought nickel - 




















iron-base 


0.7 


0.7 


1.8 


9.7 


3.7 


3.9 


1.1 


21.6 


3.2 


Heat-resistant 




















alloy castings.... 


1.0 


6.1 














2.5 


9.6 


2.3 


Corrosion^resistant 




















alloy castings .... 


2.3 


14.1 














4.4 


20.8 


3.9 


Total^ 


7.8 


23.3 


5.4 


29.3 


12.5 


16.5 


10.1 







^Represents current obsolete scrap available for use in 1976 derived from earlier 

years . 
^Mixed melt shop scrap. 

^Calculated from average compositions of table 25 . 
"^ Grand total: 104.9 million pounds of scrap containing 18.9 million tons of 

chromium . 



Material Losses 

Dust, scale, and slag are generated during the production of the primary prod- 
uct. This material is contaminated and unsuitable for presently known recycling 



25 



technology. Table 20 shows the amount of this material, along with estimates 
of the amount of unsuitable scrap generated during the production of finished 
products (pickle sludges, electrochemical and electrodischarge machining 
wastes, and scales) and the amount of service wastage. The 40 million pounds 
of material lost in this manner in 1976 represents 6.1 percent of the alloy 
raw materials melted in that year. Included in this figure is 1 to 2 percent 
of solid scrap that is inadvertently lost during the scrap reclamation 
processes owing to misclassification. 

TABLE 22. - Sources of solid scrap exported, by alloy class 

and scrap form and origin 



(Million pounds) 



Alloy class 


Prompt 

industrial 

solids 


Obsoletel 
solids 


Total 


Contained 
chromium 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel— iron— base 




3.6 
1.9 




2.6 



7.7 

3.9 






2.6 



11.3 

5.8 




0.3 



2.1 

0.9 


Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 






Total^ 


5.5 


14.2 







^Represents current obsolete scrap available for use in 1976 derived from 

earlier years. 
^Grand total: 19.7 million pounds of scrap containing 3.3 million tons of 

chromium . 

Downgraded 



This study revealed that a large quantity of superalloy scrap is under- 
utilized, in the sense that it is downgraded. This includes both solids and 
turnings, which may be of high quality, and grindings and mixed melt shop 
scrap (skulls and spills) , which are of lower quality. Downgrading is defined 
as reuse of alloy scrap as a raw material feedstock or reprocessed feedstock 
for remelting in an alloy class that has less stringent quality requirements. 
Scrap flow within the six alloy classes surveyed was not included in this anal- 
ysis. The quantity of scrap that is currently downgraded is given by alloy 
class and scrap form in table 21. This information was derived from tables 15, 
16, and 17 using the assumptions discussed earlier. For instance, it was 
assumed that all of the turnings, grindings, and mixed melt shop scrap not 
being remelted are downgraded. In addition, it was assumed that half of the 
available solid scrap not being remelted or lost is downgraded. Responses to 
the survey supported these assumptions. Note that through the use of these 
assumptions, a simplified view of an extremely complex industry is presented. 
Therefore, while there are currently efforts underway to develop technology 
to recycle certain grindings, sludges, and so forth, the total of material 
recycled in this manner is currently small and will be neglected for the 
purpose of this study. 









1 •-< 
























/— \ 








o <u 






vo 


o 


r-. cy> 


O O 


CN 


• 13 








en u 














• • 






• 


CJ <u 








^ <o 






cs 








r^ CO 






«* 


O 4J 








O >H 




















rH 


•H U 






0) 
























•P O 






-p r 


























■M 


Q, to 


rH 
























U 


e 3 


cd 




o 


o 


VO o^ 


o o 


lO 


13 (U 






O 


O T3 


•H 












• • 






• 


O 






S' 


»^ C 


u 












CO rH 






IT) 


U r^ 






PLH -H 


4J 




















a> • 






pa 
























" rH 






^ 



































o 


o 


O O 


o o 


O 


CO 








O 






















U 13 


a 






w 






















cd d 


5 




























Q) cd 






1 -1 






















4J 






O (U 






00 


iH 


CX3 m 


rH r^ 


o 


«« 


•H 






m -u 














• • 




» • 


• 


M 4J 


CO 






,o <u 






CD 


CN 


c<g rH 


>d- -^ 


vo 


(U CO 


O 






O H 


















rH 


CN 


•H O 


CO 




























■ ' 






■p 1 






















rn rn 


•H 




4J 


a CO 


H 




















Cd in 


tJ 




(0 


S :3 


ca 




«* 


CO 


1^ «<f 


o o 


00 


(U . 






O 


O TJ 


•H 












• • 






• 


CJ\ 


Q 




h4 


n fl 


u 




o 






Cvj rH 






sr 


e on 


to 






PM Ti 


4J 




















o 


U 
O 




























u •> 
MH 13 






0) 






















CO 






S 
o 






r-« 


VO 


1^ «;r 


O CO 


r^ 


(U 




















• • 




» • 


• 


13 T3 


•s 






X 






iH 






rH rH 


rH CN 


00 


cu cd 


§ 




























•H 60 






1 -• 




























O (U 






vO 


CSJ 


<y\ o 


m si- 


vo 


S-l C 


CO 






CO 4J 














• • 




» • 


• 


CU ^ 


09 






Xi (U 






CNJ 


CN 


cr\ m 


CM sr 


vo 


13 O 


ctf 




13 


O H 




















CM 


13 


iH 
CJ 




0) 
























VO 


^^ 


■u 1 


























CO 


tS 


a< CO 


rH 




CO 


O 


1^ Cvj 


o o 


CN 


a\ • 


>. 


T3 


>>4 


e :i 


td 












• • 






• 


rH St 


O 


G 


60 


o ts 


•H 




CN 








0\ lO 






r^ 


o 


rH 


3 


c 


^< s 


u 












Cv) rH 






St 


C rH 


r-\ 


O 


^ 


fl^ -H 


4J 




















•H 


« 


cu 


o 


























<u 






r^ 


cx: 




r^ »* 


rH St 


rH 


cu 13^ 


t^ 


a 




s 














• • 




» • 


• 


CO (U 


,Q 


q 




o 






iH 






CO rH 


r^ vo 


iH 


3 -P 




•rl 




w 


















rH 


CO 


rH 






























U 0) 

o a 


bt 




1 r-1 






<r 


o 


O CO 


CO m 


m 


C 


•H 




O 0) 














• • 




> • 


• 


M-l <U 


♦H 


S 




CO 4J 






CNJ 








00 o\ 


m CO 


CO 


U 


rH 


s_/ 




^ 0) 














rH 


CO St 


rH 


(U 


o 






O H 




















rH 


rH 


t>1 




0) 
























^ 00 
Cd • 




■M 1 






















0) 




■u 


& " 


iH 




C^ 




o 


St r^ 


O CO 


t^ 


rH VO 


M 




H 


;3 


CO 




< 












» • 


• 


•H rH 






d) 


O 13 


•H 




^ 




CO 


IT) CVJ 


rH Csl 


in 


Cd Si- 


(a 







U G 


U 




r— 














CN 


> W 


Cfl 




<u 


fM -H 


•P 




















Cd 


M 




P4 
























CO 
























O 












<r 


K 




VO CM 


O vo 


vo 


pi. 13 


Cfl 






§ 






CN 








• • 

»sr CO 


r- 


in 


r>. 


cd a 

U 3 


S 






2 














00 >3- 


St O 


r^ 


o o 


• 






m 


















rH 


rg 


CO a. 


CO 
















• • 








(U ci 


C>4 








-a 












• 
1 • 








4J o 
cu -H 


m 








rt 




cd 








> • 




! >^ '. 




rH rH 


t^ 




















• <u 




• o • 




O rH 


P9 








1 




1 








' CO 




• rH • 




CO 'H 


fi 








r-{ 




iH 








• cd 




• rH • 




rO a 


H 








^ 




(U 








:•? 


!>^ 


. td • 




o 






CO 




o 




• o 




' 'd 




• « 


O 


• P • 




p • 






CO 




•H 




> -H 




' C! 




' o 


rH 


• C ' 




cl o 






m 




c 




! "^ 




• CO 




' u 


rH 


> cd • 




0) 00 






<H 
















• "H 


Cd 


. 4J . 




n m 






o 




u 

CO 




• 4J 
> CO 




• 1 

' rH 




• 1 

• rH 


4J 


> CO • 
•H • 




u 

3 






!>> 




td 




' Cd 




• <U 




. 0) 


ti 


> CO • 




o •• 






O 




o 


a 


CJ 


a 


1 M 


(U ^ 


Cd 


<U • 




rH 






iH 






Cf 




a 


1 CJ 


CO o 


4-t 


u • 


(N 


CO Cd 






:d 




4-1 


cC 


60 


cC 


•H 


cd Ti 


CO < 


1 • 


rH 


4J P 








ti 


►c 


C 


X 


> « 


ua ti 


•H V 


ti CO cd 


a O 










0) 




•H 


1 




1 


CO 6 


O 60 4J 


CU 4-1 










s 


■u 


O 


4. 


+J 


■p +J 


<U C 


•H fi O 


CO 










p 


1— 


cd 




rd 


rH JH 


>-l 1- 


CD -H H 


(U 13 










CO 


ct 


m 


ct 


W) 


Cd 60 


1 *. 


O P 


u s 










(U 


^ 


13 


►c 


3 


^ 3 


U V 


U CO 


a cd 










> 


c 


M 


c 


o 


o o 


Cd ct 


U Cd 


(U M 










« 


cJ 


td 


Cj 


>i 


o n 


<U c 


o o 


P^ o 












M 




m 




& 




^2 


ffi 


u 




.-t CM 



27 

The 105 million pounds of chromium containing nickel-, cobalt-, and 
nickel-iron-base alloy and heat- and corrosion-resistant scrap downgraded in 
1976 represents about 16 percent of the raw materials melted in that year. 
This scrap contained 18.9 million pounds of chromium. 

Approximately one-half of this scrap (54 million pounds) occurs as grind- 
ings and mixed melt shop scrap and is unsuitable for recycling to the same 
alloy class using current recycling technology. This material is now reproc- 
essed by "secondary metal" refiners who experience a relatively low recovery 
rate because of the processes required to remove impurities. The refined 
ingot is used as a nickel-rich feedstock for the stainless steel, cast iron, 
or alloy steel industries. An undefined amount (perhaps as much as one-half) 
of the chromium, plus other valuable elements (molybdenum, tungsten, etc.), 
is lost by oxidation during the remelting cycle at the refinery. Cobalt is 
retained as a minor constituent and is added to stainless, cast iron, or alloy 
steels as an unintentional alloying element. 

The remaining 51 million pounds of downgraded alloy scrap occurs as 
solids and turnings which are suitable for direct charging to the melting 
furnace in the stainless steel, cast iron, and alloy steel industries. In 
this case, most of the chromium is recovered but its value is essentially 
equivalent to that of low-carbon ferrochromium, although it may have origi- 
nated as expensive, high-purity chromium metal. 

Exported 

The study showed that many indi.viduals believed that a significant quan- 
tity of chromium-containing alloy scrap is being exported. This view was 
confirmed by several scrap dealers and by an industry consultant. In 1976, 
based on information reported by the Bureau of Mines (10) , 31.9 million pounds 
of nickel wastes and nickel alloy scrap were exported from the United States. 
The very broad export classification used includes most of the alloy classes 
covered in this study. The information supports the view that a significant 
quantity of chromium-containing scrap is exported. 

In the absence of specific information, it was assumed that about one- 
half of the available prompt industrial and obsolete solid alloy scrap is 
exported. Table 22 shows that about 20 million pounds of chromium-containing 
alloy scrap was exported in 1976. This quantity is consistent with the Bureau 
of Mines data. It represents approximately 3 percent of the raw material 
melted for these alloy classes in that year. 

The quality of scrap exported is high and thus represents a significant 
depletion of potential chromium reserves for the domestic metals industries. 
On the other hand, the commercial value of scrap (selling price) is presumed 
to be higher in the export market than the value as a domestic steel charge. 

An additional contributing factor to the flow of chromium-containing 
alloy scrap from the United States is the construction of plants and machinery 
for export. Unless the direction of scrap flow reverses — currently nickel- 
containing scrap exports average 3^ times greater than imports ( 10) — it is 



28 



unlikely that the obsolete scrap, derived from dismantled petroleum, chemical 
processing, and power-generating plants, will re-enter the United States. Such 
applications involve sizable quantities of alloy castings and wrought nickel-, 
cobalt- and nickel-iron-base alloys. A quantitative assessment of material in 
this category was considered to be outside the scope of this study. 

The investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys used in the manufac- 
ture of exported commercial and military aircraft gas turbine engines were 
found to be recovered in the United States. These engines are currently 
repaired and ultimately scrapped at major repair facilities in the United 
States. 



Efficiency of Recycling 

From the data for raw materials melted given in table 9 and the data for 
quantity of scrap remelted given in table 19, it is possible to calculate the 
current scrap recycling efficiency for the alloy industries covered in this 
study by alloy class. Recycling efficiency, expressed in percent of the melt 
charge, is presented in table 24. As noted earlier, the present level of 
scrap recycling efficiency is dictated primarily by metallurgical considera- 
tions such as trace element control and physical and mechanical property 
specifications imposed by the alloy users. Therefore, it is concluded that 
the alloy producers are making maximum use of available high-quality chromium- 
containing alloy scrap within these materials specifications. 

TABLE 24. - Calculated recycling efficiency for the six classes of alloy 



Alloy class 


Current scrap 

recycling 
efficiency, ^ 
percent 


Potential scrap 
recycling 
efficiency,^ 
percent 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 


55 
37 
60 
60 
78 
77 


76 
58 
83 
83 


Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


78 
77 



^Expressed as percent of all available scrap. 
^Using all available solids and turnings (currently downgraded and/or 
exported) . 



If melting and refining technology were developed or materials specifica- 
tions were relaxed to allow complete recycling of all available high-quality 
chromium-containing alloy scrap (solids and turnings) , the recycling efficien- 
cies could be increased for the more highly alloyed materials, as shown in the 
second column of table 24. More scrap would be used if it were less expensive 
and more readily available than primary metals . While this development would 
not eliminate the requirement for primary raw materials, the quantities 
required would be reduced. 



29 



Scrap Price Considerations 

Metal scrap prices have a history of volatility because they reflect a 
sensitive free market response to supply and demand for raw materials . In 
times of ready availability of primary metals, the free market prices for both 
scrap and primary metals are lower than the quoted producer price. When 
demand for primary metals exceeds supply due to increase in demand or decrease 
in supply, the free market price exceeds the producer price. For relatively 
simple alloys, the free market price of scrap is about half of that of the 
contained pure metals. This varies somewhat among different alloys for a 
number of metallurgical and commercial reasons, but the ratio has been con- 
sistent for approximately the last 20 years . Scrap price is also dependent 
on the grade or quality. Three categories in common use for nickel alloys 
are "vacuum melting," "air melting," and "refinery" grades. The prices for 
these grades are approximately 80 percent, 50 percent, and 35 percent of the 
primary metal prices . The factors that determine scrap grade are degree of 
identification, cleanliness, and size. 

The overall situation for scrap prices is more complex for the multi- 
component alloys considered in this study. Because primary metal sources of 
any of the constituents may be subject to restricted supply situation at any 
given time, cost fluctuations due to restricted supply may be superimposed on 
fluctuations due to variation in demand from the general economy. At certain 
times, the free market price of a single element can have a disproportionate 
effect on the price of alloy scrap. These two factors have influenced the 
price of chromixim-containing alloy scrap in recent years. As mentioned 
earlier, 1976 was a period of relatively low demand and general availability 
of primary metals . Scrap prices were generally lower than producer prices of 
the contained primary metal values. This situation prevailed as recently as 
February 1979 (table 14). In contrast, the scrap prices quoted for May 1979 
were 10 to 40 percent higher than producer prices of contained primary metals. 
This is due to three factors: increased alloy production, recent shortages of 
some forms of nickel and molybdenum, and very severe shortage of cobalt. The 
average producer price for cobalt in 1976 was $5.58 per pound, the Liay 1979 
producer price was $25, and the May 1979 free market price was $37.50. The 
quotes for nickel alloy scrap in 1979 include a surcharge for cobalt at the 
current free market price. Based on historical evidence, it is likely that 
the free market price for both primary metal and scrap will drop sharply when 
more cobalt becomes available through increased production of primary metal 
and reduced demand. The present experience, however, provides an excellent 
example of how a minor scrap component can temporarily control price. 

Quantity of Chromium Required for Melting 

The estimates of quantity of alloy produced by the superalloy and heat- 
and corrosion-resistant alloy casting industries, given in tables 2 through 7, 
and the specific alloy compositions shown in appendix A were used to calculate 
weighted average compositions for each alloy class (table 25) . Only the major 
elements, chromium, nickel, cobalt, and iron, are identified in this table, 
since these elements were of primary interest to the present study. 



30 



TABLE 25. - Calculated weighted average composition, by alloy class 



Alloy class 


Composition, weight-percent 




Cr 


Ni 


Co 


Fe 


Others 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base... 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base... 
Wrought nickel— and cobalt— base 


13.3 
24.3 
18.2 
15.0 
24.0 
18.6 


63.6 
8.0 
62.5 
34.1 
20.5 
8.9 


7.4 

54.9 

4.8 

3.5 






1.1 
.7 

7.0 
42.1 
55.5 
72.5 


14.6 

12.0 

7.5 


Wrought nickel— iron— base 


5.3 


Heat— resistant alloy castings 





Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 






The technique used to obtain the weighted average compositions involved 
(1) multiplying the estimated weight of primary product for each alloy within 
a particular alloy class by the composition of that alloy, (2) summing the 
pounds of individual elements thus derived, and (3) dividing those sums by the 
total weight of primary product in that class. It was assumed that within any 
given alloy class, the primary production efficiency was about equal for all 
alloys . 

The quantity of chromium contained in raw materials in 1976 was calcu- 
lated by multiplying the melt charge requirements shown in table 12 by the 
percentage of chromium in the average composition in table 25. This calcula- 
tion assumes that only "same alloy" scrap is used in the melt charge. The 
derived chromium content figures are given in table 26. 

TABLE 26. - Chromium content of melt charge components, by alloy class 

(Million pounds) 



Alloy class 


Primary 
metal 


Home 
scrap 


Purchased 
scrap 


Total 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base.. 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base.. 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel— iron— base 


1.7 
1.6 

13.1 
5.5 
5.4 

10.0 


0.3 
.2 

15.4 
6.5 
9.8 

19.6 


1.8 
.7 
4.3 
1.8 
9.3 
13.9 


3.8 

2.5 

32.8 

13.8 


Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


24.5 
43.5 


Total 


37.3 


51.8 


31.8 


120.9 



Table 27 shows the quantity of chromium lost from the domestic alloy pro- 
duction circuit in 1976. These data are derived from the information in 
tables 20-22 and 25. Note that the quantity of primary chromium required for 
the melt charge (table 26) is 7.7 million pounds greater than the amount lost 
from the circuit (table 27) . This is the quantity of chromium required to 
account for market growth over the period of obsolete scrap generation. 

In 1976 37.3 million pounds of new primary chromium was required for 
melting by the superalloy and heat- and corrosion-resistant casting industries. 
While this figure could be reduced somewhat by improved recycling efficiency, 
most of this chromium requirement is necessary to replace scrap that is 
unsuitable or unavailable for recycling or to account for market growth. 



31 



For example, if all available solids and turnings scrap were recycled, the 
primary chromiiim requirement could be reduced to 25 million pounds. Subtract- 
ing the chromium required for market growth (7.7 million pounds), about 17 mil- 
lion pounds of chromium metal was lost to these alloy-producing industries, 
because it was contained in poor-quality scrap (grindings, mixed melt shop 
scrap, service wastage) or lost high-quality scrap. 

TABLE 27 . - Chromium content of scrap not directly recycled in 1976 

(Million pounds) 





Scrap disposition 


Total 


Contained 


Alloy class 


Lost 


Down- 
graded 


Exported 


chromium 


Investment cast nickel- and cobalt-base 
Hardfacing cast nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel-iron-base 

Heat-resistant alloy castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy castings 


2.9 
3.0 
7.2 
4.3 
5.1 
17.1 


6.6 

3.0 

43.3 

21.6 

9.6 

20.8 


2.6 



11.3 

5.8 




12.1 
6.0 
61.8 
31.7 
14.7 
37.8 


1.6 
1.5 
11.2 
4.8 
3.5 
7.0 


Total 


39.5 


104.9 


19.7 


164.1 


29.6 



Relationship to Total U.S. Chromium Requirements 

Having established the primary metals chromium requirements, it is possi- 
ble to determine the quantities of the various forms of primary chromium 
required for the six alloy classifications . This was accomplished by estimat- 
ing the requirements for pure chromium metal (alumino thermic and electrolytic) , 
high-carbon ferro chromium, and low-carbon ferrochromium (including 
ferrochromium-silicon) for each alloy class. These estimates are given in 
table 28. Note that the requirement of 7.2 million pounds of pure chromium 
metal represents about 20 percent of the total primary metal chromiiom required 
by the industries described in this study. 

The primary chromium metal requirements of these industries are compared 
with the total metallurgical requirements in the United States for 1976 in 
table 29. Total consumption of chromium by the alloy industries covered in 
this study was 7.7 percent of the total. However, these industries accounted 
for 95 percent of the consumption of the highest quality, most expensive forms 
of chromium.'' 

The trend in these industries over the past 5 years has been toward the 
use of more high-carbon ferrochromium at the expense of more costly low-carbon 
ferrochromium. This trend is associated with the advent of the argon-oxygen 
decarburization process for alloy production. This process is being used to 
produce a number of wrought nickel- and nickel-iron-base alloys, as well as 
cast heat- and corrosion-resistant alloys. However, alloys containing chromium- 
iron ratios greater than 2.5:1 will continue to require chromium metal. 



^The chromium requirement was estimated from the production model of the indus- 
try. A representative of one of the two U.S. producers of chromitim metal 
estimated that 90 percent, or 6.9 million pounds, was actually used in 
nickel alloys. The agreement is well within the assumed accuracy of the 
model . 



32 



TABLE 28. - Quantities of primary metal chromium used in the melt charge in 1976 





Primai^r 

metal 
chromium 

used, 
million 

pounds 


Chromium metal -"^ 


Chromium as 
high-carbon 


Chrc 

low- 

ferrc 


)mium as 
-carbon 


Alloy class 


Per- 
cent^ 


Million 
pounds of 
chromium 


ferrochromlum 


)chromium 




Per- 
cent^ 


Million 
pounds of 
chromium 


Per- 
cent^ 


Million 
pounds of 
chromium 


Investment cast nickel- and 
cobalt~base 


1.7 

1.6 

13.1 
5.5 

5.4 

10.02 


100 

100 

30 





1.7 
1.6 
3.9 









50 
70 

60 

60 






6.6 
3.9 

3.2 

6.0 






20 
30 

40 

40 





Hardfacing cast nickel- and 
cobalt-base 

Wrought nickel- and 
cobalt— base 



2.6 


Wrought nickel-iron-base . . . 
Heat-resistant alloy 

castings 

Corrosion-resistant alloy 

castings 


1.6 
2.2 
4.0 


Total 


37.3 


NAp 


7.2 


NAp 


19.7 


NAp 


10.4 



NAp Not applicable. 

^Electrolytic and alumino thermic chromium. 
Expressed as percent of primary metals chromitim used. 

TABLE 29. - Relation between primary chromium consumed for the six alloy classes and 
total primary chromium consumed for metallurgical applications in 1976 





Consumption of chromium for 


Primary chromium 






metallurgical applications 


consumed in all 


Percent 


Form 


during 1976 in the 


alloy classes, 


of form 




United States, 


this study. 


used 




million pounds! 


million pounds 




Low-carbon ferrochromlum and 








ferrochromlum-silicon 


159.1 


10.4 


6.5 


High-carbon ferrochromlum . . . 


319.0 


19.7 


6.2 


Chromium metal 


7.6 


7.2 


95.0 


Total 


485.7 


37.3 


27.7 



^Morning, J. L. Chromium. BuMines Minerals Yearbook 1976, v. 1, 1978, pp. 297-308. 
^Percent of total U.S. chromium consumption used for the alloy classes covered in 
this study. 



Past Trends in Alloy Production and Scrap Generation in the 

Superalloy and Heat- and Corrosion-Resistant Alloy 

Casting Industries, Projected to the Year 2000 

The quantity of raw materials required for the six alloy classes as derived from 
various data sources for 1958-78 was shown previously in tables 8 and 9 and figures 2 
and 3. A regression analysis of this data was performed to provide the curves shown. 
These curves show an average annual growth rate for heat- and corrosion-resistant 
high-alloy castings of 2 and 3.2 percent, respectively. Investment cast, hardfacing 
and wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys, and wrought nickel-iron-base alloys were 
assumed to grow at the same rate as nickel consumption for those alloy classes. As 
shown in figure 3, that is an annual growth rate of 2.1 percent per year. 



33 

These data show that the superalloy and heat- and corrosion-resistant 
alloy casting industries have experienced relatively low growth rates (less 
than 3 percent per year). These industries are also subject to severe cycli- 
cal fluctuations. Except for a strong demand by the "aerospace industry," 
which began late in 1977 and is expected to continue for 5 to 10 years, it is 
difficult to anticipate a change in the overall growth rate in these indus- 
tries for the next 20 years. This is reflected in the dotted line projections 
in figures 2 and 3. 

Major commercial events that could substantially increase demand for 
these alloys include extensive construction of coal conversion equipment, 
widespread adoption of the automotive gas turbine, a major military procure- 
ment program (gas-turbine-powered tanks) , and adoption of nickel -base alloy 
tubing for sour oil or gas wells. Unless major breakthroughs occur, there 
is very little likelihood of significant replacement of chromium-containing 
alloys with materials such as ceramics or coated alloys, before the year 2000. 

Research and development efforts are underway in the aerospace industry 
to provide improved melt-charge-to-finished-product yields. If these efforts 
are successful, the scrap generated will be substantially reduced. "Near net 
shape processing" using metal powders is one such approach. Producers of 
simple, wrought alloys are exploring "continuous casting" as a means for 
eliminating ingot hot tops and reducing wastage during hot working. Wide- 
spread use of this technology would reduce the availability of home scrap in 
the wrought nickel- cobalt- and nickel- iron-base alloy categories. This 
improvement in production efficiency would change the proportions of home 
and purchased scrap in the melt charge but would not necessarily increase 
scrap demand because of commensurate reduction in raw materials requirements. 

Comments on Improving the Model and Continuing Surveillance of Field 

The industries treated in this study are specialized, complex, and highly 
competitive. Consequently, it is difficult to obtain precise information on 
alloy production, melt charge make-up , primary and finished product yield, and 
scrap recycling practices. This report is based on a production model (fig- 
ures 4 through 10) of these industries that was generated from data estimated 
to be reliable within ±20 percent. 

A first step toward improving the model would be to conduct a more com- 
prehensive survey of the chromium-containing-alloy production and scrap- 
generating industries. The largest gap in the present model occurs with 
respect to disposition of prompt industrial and obsolete scrap processed by 
the recyclers. It would be of considerable value if a trade association of 
the recyclers would collect and publish statistics on chromium-containing- 
alloy scrap. 

The U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Mines, maintain up-to-date statistics on many categories of raw 
material consumption and alloy production. However, these statistics are not 
sufficiently detailed to provide adequate information on the chromium- 
containing-alloy industry. In view of the critical nature of this industry 



34 



to the U.S. manufacturing, transportation, energy conversion, and defense 
industries, it is clear that more comprehensive and specific data re required. 

SUMMARY 



A production model was developed for six classes of chromium-containing 
alloys, which included the cast and wrought nickel-, cobalt-, and nickel-iron- 
base alloys and heat- and corrosion-resistant casting alloys. Based on avail- 
able information and a survey of alloy producers, finished product manufactur- 
ers, and users, information was gathered to determine a best estimate of 
production practices and quantity of products and scrap produced at each 
stage of production. The character and disposition of the scrap generated 
were determined. Calculations were then made to determine the quantities of 
the critical metals, chromium, nickel, and cobalt that are currently being 
lost from these alloy-producing industries through export, downgrading to 
lower alloy grades such as stainless steel, or loss to landfill disposal. 

First, an accurate estimate was made of the quantity and average composi- 
tion of primary production for 1976. This year was chosen because it was the 
latest year for which the most complete production data were available. In 
1976, 330.8 million pounds of primary product was produced of the six alloy 
classes covered by this study. The quantities of alloying elements required 
to produce these alloys are summarized in table 30. 

TABLE 30. - Quantity of contained elements in products and scrap in 1976 



Source 



Cr 



Element, million pounds 



Ni 



Co 



Fe 



Others 



Total 



Raw material ^ , 

Primary metals , 

Primary product • 

Finished product , 

Remelted seraph , 

Downgraded scrap , 

Lost scrap 

Exported scrap , 

Includes primary metals, home scrap, 
^Does not include 26.6 million pounds 
classes. 



121.1 
37.3 
61.6 
47.6 
78.6 
18.9 
7.5 
3.3 



205.0 
75.8 

108.1 
65.4 

126.6 
42.7 
10.6 
10.7 



19.7 
9.3 

12.1 
6.5 

10.4 

5.0 

2.4 

.9 



278, 

72, 

135, 

121, 

187, 

32, 

17, 

3, 



23.9 

10.0 

13.6 

6.9 

13.8 

5.7 

1.5 

1.5 



648.2 
204.8 
330.8 
247.6 
416.8 
104.9 
39.5 
19.7 



and purchased scrap . 
of scrap purchased from 



outside alloy 



Second, the alloy producers provided an estimate of their efficiency of 
production, which averaged 51 percent. From this and the quantity of primary 
product, it was possible to calculate that 648.2 million pounds of primary 
metals and purchased and home scrap were melted by the cast and wrought 
nickel-, cobalt-, and nickel-iron-base alloy and heat- and corrosion-resistant 
alloy casting producers in 1976. Further inquiry showed that the average 
relative mixture of raw materials for melting was 32 percent (204.8 million 
pounds) primary metals, 25 percent (165.8 million pounds) purchased scrap, and 
43 percent (277.6 million pounds) home scrap. In addition, the alloy produc- 
ers were asked to characterize the scrap material generated from the produc- 
tion cycle. The form and quantity of home scrap generated during the alloy 



35 



production cycle is shown in table 31, row 1. Disposition of home scrap is 
given in table 32, column 1. 

TABLE 31. - Source, form, and quantity of scrap generated in 1976 

(Million pounds) 



Source 


Solids 


Turnings 


Grind ings 


Mixed 


Waste 


Total 


Home 


266.1 

30.3 

144.2 


11.5 

34.1 




7.8 
14.0 
10.1 


23.3 




8.7 

4.8 

26.0 


317.4 


Prompt industrial 

Obsolete^ 


83.2 
180.3 


Total 


440.6 


45.6 


31.9 


23.3 


39.5 


580.9 


■'^Obsolete scrap availab! 


.e in 1976 derived from previous 


years' production. 



TABLE 32 . - Scrap disposition by source and form in 1976 

(Million pounds) 



Disposition and form 


Source 


Total 




Home 


Prompt industrial 


Obsolete 




Remelted:^ 

Solids 


266.1 

11.5 





7.8 

23.3 

8.7 




ll9.4 
4.8 
1.5 

5.4 

12.5 



4.8 

5.5 


113.5 



16.5 

10.1 



26.0 

14.2 


] 


Turnings 

Grindines 


416.9 


Downgraded : 

Solids 




Grindines 


104.9 


Mixed 




Lost (waste) ■> . 

Exported (solids) 


39.5 
19.7 


Total 


317.4 


83.2 


180.3 


580.9 



•'•Does not include 26.6 million pounds of solid scrap purchased from outside 
alloy classes . 

Next, the finished product manufacturing cycle was examined. Through 
discussions with manufacturers and industry experts, it was determined that 
the overall average efficiency of utilization of primary product in the manu- 
facture of finished products was about 75 percent (38 percent of the raw 
materials melted). Thus, of the 330.8 million pounds of primary product of 
the six alloy classes studies, it was estimated that 247.6 million pounds was 
contained in finished products (heat exchangers, gas turbine engines, chemical 
process equipment) in 1976 and that 83.2 million pounds of prompt industrial 
scrap was generated. The form and disposition of this prompt industrial scrap 
are given in tables 31 and 32. 

Finally, discussions were held with end users, scrap dealers, and industry 
experts on the average life cycle and scrap practices for obsolete equipment. 
Based on these discussions, it was estimated that the average life cycle for 



36 

components made from cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys was 5 years, compared 
with- 10 years for products made from the remaining four alloy classes . An 
estimate was then made of the quantity of obsolete scrap that would occur in 
1976 based on primary production data from previous years. The amount of 
service wastage and the character, quantity, and disposition of obsolete scrap 
generated when obsolete equipment was removed from service in 1976 were then 
estimated. Thus, 180.3 million pounds of obsolete scrap of cast and wrought 
nickel-, cobalt-, and nickel-iron-base alloys and heat- and corrosion- 
resistant cast alloys was generated in 1976. Note this is lower than the 
247.6 million pounds of finished products manufactured from these alloys in 
that year. The form and disposition of obsolete scrap generated in 1976 are 
given in tables 31 and 32. 

Regarding the overall recycling efficiency of these alloy producing and 
using industries, of the 580.9 million pounds of scrap generated from these 
six alloy classes in 1976, about 72 percent (416.8 million pounds) was 
remelted by the same alloy-producing industries, about 18 percent (104.9 
million pounds) was downgraded into stainless steel and low-alloy steels, 
about 3 percent (19.7 million pounds) was exported, and about 7 percent 
(39.5 million pounds) was lost through landfill disposal. The lost material 
is primarily contaminated oxides which currently are unrecoverable. However, 
the 124.6 million pounds of scrap material estimated to be downgraded or 
exported in 1976 contained potentially recoverable critical strategic 
elements . 

The quantities of chromium, nickel, cobalt, iron, and other elements 
contained in scrap that is currently remelted, lost, downgraded, or exported 
are given in table 30. From this it can be shown that a significant amount 
of chromivim (22.1 million pounds) was downgraded or exported in 1976. Recov- 
ery of this chromium and other strategic metals would provide a significant 
quantity of the primary metals needs of these alloy-producing industries . 

CONCLUSIONS 

1. A production model that defines the flow of materials from raw 
materials to obsolete scrap has been established for six related alloy 
classes produced by the superalloy and heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy 
casting industries. 

2. Scrap has been identified according to quantity, alloy class, physi- 
cal form, grade or quality, origin, and destination. 

3. The quantity and quality of scrap used for recycling and the proce- 
dures for using it are different for each alloy class. Generally, the 
requirements are most stringent for the high-nickel alloys, which use the 
purest and most costly form of primary chromium and the least amount of scrap. 

4. The total quantity of scrap generated in the production and use of 
these alloys in 1976 was 580 million pounds containing 113.2 million pounds 
of chromium. Approximately 125 million pounds of scrap containing about 

25 million pounds of chromium was downgraded or exported. About 40 million 



37 



pounds of scrap containing 7,4 million pounds of chromium was physically lost 
or considered as waste that was too contaminated to recover, 

5. About 78 percent of the melt charge for heat- and corrosion-resistant 
alloy castings is scrap. This represents all of the available scrap of suit- 
able quality for that class; hence, there is little prospect for further 
improvement in recycling efficiency. 

6. The current recycling efficiency for the other higher alloy classes 
is much lower (37 to 60 percent) owing to metallurgical constraints. Research 
aimed at improving recycling efficiency for these alloy classes would reduce 
the quantity of high-grade scrap now downgraded or exported. 

7 . The model developed in this study could provide the basis for con- 
tinued surveillance of the field to develop a more comprehensive data base. 



38 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

1. Air Force Materials Laboratory, Metals and Ceramics Division. Summary- 

Report on Air Force Chromium Workshop. Air Force Systems Command, 
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. May 1975, 138 pp. 

2. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories (Columbus, Ohio). A Study To Identify 

Opportunities for Increased Solid Waste Utilization: Volume VI — Nickel 
and Stainless Steels (prepared for National Association of Secondary 
Material Industries, Inc.). June 1972, 113 pp. 

3. Boyle, J. R. Manufacturing Methods for Strategic Materials Reclamation, 

Sixth Interim Technical Report. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Rept. 
AFML-IR-162-4-VI, AFML Contract F33615-74-C-5019, Sept. 30, 1975, 
56 pp. 

4. Cremisio, R. S. and L. M. Wasserman. Superalloy Scrap Processing and 

Trace Element Considerations. Proc. 1977 Vacuum Metallurgy Conf ., 
Pittsburgh, Pa., June 20-22, 1977. Science Press, Princeton, N.J., 
1977, pp. 353-388. 

5. Gordon, R. L., W. H. Lambo, and G. H. K. Schenck. Effective Systems of 

Scrap Utilization: Copper, Aluminum, and Nickel. BuMines OFR 18-72, 
1972, 220 pp.; available for consultation at the Central Library, 
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

6. Kusik, C. L., and C. B. Kenahan. Energy Use Patterns for Metal 

Recycling. BuMines IC 8781, 1978, 182 pp. 

7. Kusik, C. L., H. V. Makar, and M. R. Mounier. Availability of Critical 

Scrap Metals Containing Chromium in the United States. Wrought 
Stainless Steels and Heat-resisting Alloys. BuMines IC 8822, 1980, 
51 pp. 

8. National Association of Recycling Industries. Recycling Nickel Alloys 

and Stainless Steel Scrap. June 1977, 20 pp. 

9. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Industrial Reports. Iron and Steel 

Castings. M33A(78)-5, May 1978, 6 pp. 

10. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Nickel. Mineral Industry Surveys, December 1958- 
December 1978. 



39 



APPENDIX A.— DEFINITION OF TERMS 

Aerospace Industry . — Manufacturers of airplanes, rockets, and attendant 
equipment . 

Air-Melt-Grade Scrap . — Mixed scrap of known alloy type, generally in 
solid form but may include turnings . 

Charge Materials (Melt Charge) . — Raw materials to be melted to provide 
an ingot or casting. Includes primary metals, purchased scrap, and home 
scrap . 

Continuous Casting . — A method of forming a bar or slab by continuously 
pouring molten metal through a nozzle into an open-ended mold. Solid metal 
is withdrawn continuously from the exit side of the mold. 

Corrosion-Resistant Alloy Castings . — Cast alloys used to resist corrosion 
by aqueous solutions at or near room temperature and hot gases at temperatures 
to 1,200® F. Includes those alloys defined as C-grades by the American 
Casting Institute. 

Downgraded Scrap . — A highly alloyed scrap metal used in the preparation 
of a less complex alloy (for example, a nickel-base alloy used as a component 
in a stainless steel charge) . 

Dust . — Fine, metal-containing particles formed during melting and working 
operations such as those collected in baghouses and electrostatic precipita- 
tors. These are usually fully oxidized and contain volatile impurities and 
nonmetallic elements. 

Equipment Life Cycle . — The average time period for which a particular 
part is expected to last in service prior to wearing away, corroding, or 
becoming inefficient. 

Exported Scrap . — Scrap metal that is generated in the United States and 
exported for sale outside the United States. 

Fabricator . — Organization that transforms a previously cast and/or 
wrought metal (primary product) into a finished product. 

Finished Product . — A completed part or structure that is ready for 
service. 

Grindings . — Scrap generated during the removal of metal by an abrasive 
wheel or belt. The waste includes particles of the metal being ground and 
the abrasive. Frequently they are contaminated with oil. 

Hardf acing . — Depositing metal on a surface by welding, spraying, or 
braze welding for the purpose of resisting abrasion, erosion, wear, 
corrosion, galling, or impact. 



40 



Heat-Res is tant Alloy Castings . — Cast alloys that are capable of sustained 
operation at temperatures in excess of 1,200° F. Includes those alloys desig- 
nated as H-grades by the American Casting Institute. 

Home Scrap . — Scrap generated by an alloy producer during the conversion 
of raw materials to primary product. Home scrap includes solids, turnings, 
grindings, skulls, slag, scale, and dust. 

Identified Scrap . — Scrap of known single-alloy designation. Generally 
only solids fall into this classification, and they are usually vacuvun grade. 

Intrinsic Metal Value . — The value of a quantity of scrap based on the 
current primary metal price of the individual alloying elements. 

Investment Casting . — Casting metal into a mold produced by surrounding 
an expendable pattern with a refractory slurry; the pattern is eventually 
removed by melting. Also known as precision casting and the lost wax process. 

Liquor . — Spent liquids from pickling, electroplating, and cleaning 
operations . 

Lost Scrap . — Dust, scale, slag, pickle sludge, electrochemical and 
electrodischarge machining wastes, and service wastage which are unsuitable 
for remelting or refining and are currently disposed of as landfill. In 
addition, this category includes lost solid scrap metal. 

Master Melt . — An alloy prepared for remelting by a foundry. Often pro- 
duced and sold by firms specializing in the business. Generally used as the 
melting stock for foundries making investment castings. 

Merchant Price . — Prices quoted by metal merchants or traders for primary 
metals and scrap. Prices vary according to market conditions and may be 
either higher or lower than producer price. Merchant prices for major primary 
metals are recorded on the commodity exchanges . 

Mixed Melt Shop Scrap . — Skulls and spills in which the solidified metal 
has trapped with it a significant amount (perhaps 10 percent) of refractory 
oxides, dust, or scales. These usually are not identified as to exact compo- 
sition, but are identified by alloy class. 

Near Net Shape Processing . — A process that produces an intermediate shape 
as close to final part dimensions as possible to minimize metal removal. Pow- 
der metallurgy and casting are examples. 

Obsolete Scrap . — Solids and grindings that occur when used equipment is 
overhauled or dismantled, and service wastage which occurs during the lifetime 
of the equipment. 

Primary Metal . — A raw material derived directly from ore that is used 
either by itself or with scrap to prepare a charge for melting. This category 
includes all new metals used during melting such as vacuum-grade chromium, 
ferrochromium, and electrolytic nickel. 



41 

Primary Product . — Cast or wrought, semifinished material prepared by an 
alloy producer. Includes master melt, sheet, plate, strip, bar, tubing, 
forging stock, welding products, powder, and rough castings. 

Producer ♦ — Organization that converts raw materials In the form of pri- 
mary metals, purchased scrap, and home scrap Into a cast or wrought form known 
as a primary product. 

Producer Price . — Price that a primary metal producer quotes for a product. 
Price statistics are usually published and recorded by publications such as 
American Metal Market. 

Production Efficiency . — A measure of output as compared to starting 
materials at any stage of the life cycle of a part. 

Production Model . — A mass balance model describing metals flow from raw 
materials through obsolete scrap. 

Prompt Industrial Scrap . — Scrap generated by a fabricator or manufac- 
turer during conversion of a primary product to a finished product at a 
location removed from the melting facility. This generally takes the form 
of clippings and punchlngs from sheet metal, turnings, and solids from heavier 
castings and wrought products and grlndlngs, sludges, and liquors from fin- 
ished operations. 

Purchased Scrap . — A raw material used for melting having an origin out- 
side the melt shop. This form of scrap may be purchased from another alloy 
producer, from a manufacturer, or as obsolete parts and can be obtained 
directly from these sources or through an Intermediary. 

Raw Materials . — The basic materials needed for melting an alloy; that Is, 
the metallic constituents. Including primary metals, home scrap, and purchased 
scrap. 

Recyclers .- — Organizations that collect, classify, and redistribute 
Industrial wastes and obsolete equipment for the purpose of recovering valu- 
able constituents. Recyclers Include scrap dealers and brokers, reprocessors, 
and secondary refiners. 

Refinery-Grade Scrap . — Mixed turnings and solids of unknown composition, 
oxides, grlndlngs, etc., that are generally unsuitable for remeltlng without 
refining. 

Remelted Scrap . — Solids, grlndlngs, and turnings that are used as part of 
the raw material charge for melting. 

Same-Alloy Scrap . — Homogeneous scrap of known composition that Is to be 
remelted Into a new alloy of the same designation. Little or no composition 
adjustment would be needed to meet alloy specification. 



42 



Scale . — Metallic oxides that form on the surface of metals during 
elevated-temperature exposure, generally produced during hot working or heat 
treating; they are of mixed composition and are often contaminated with oil. 

Secondary Metals . — Pure metals or master alloys prepared by a refiner 
from scrap. In some cases secondary metals may be metallurgically indis- 
tinguishable from primary metals. The distinction is further blurred by 
primary metal producers who introduce scrap metal into their refinery circuit. 

Service Wastage . — Generally unrecoverable loss of metal during service, 
caused by wear, spalling, oxidation, corrosion, etc. Also includes materials 
that are unrecoverable because of the nature of their service; that is, cer- 
tain military hardware, nuclear power system components, and general consumer 
items such as appliance heating elements and automotive parts. 

Skulls . — A layer of solidified metal on the walls of a furnace, ladle, 
tundish, or mold. This solid scrap usually has a significant amount of 
refractory oxide associated with it. 

Slag . — A mostly nonmetallic product resulting from the mutual dissolution 
of flux and nonmetallic impurities in smelting and refining operations. Slags 
often contain valuable metal dissolved as oxide or physically trapped as small 
metallic droplets . 

Sludge . — Scrap produced by electroplating, pickling, polishing, electro- 
chemical machining, and other industrial operations. Sludge generally has a 
low metal content and contains large quantities of chemical salt, oil, or 
water . 

Solids . — A classification for articles larger than about %-inch diameter. 
Includes casting scrap (misruns, gates, risers, imperfect castings), ingot hot 
tops, billet cropping, clippings, obsolete parts, etc. 

Spills . — Solidified drops and splashes of metal formed inadvertently 
during the pouring of molten metal. This solid scrap usually has a signifi- 
cant quantity of refractory oxide, dust, and scale trapped within it. 

Superalloy . — A general definition used for chromium-containing alloys 
based on nickel, cobalt, or iron developed for elevated temperature service 
where severe mechanical stressing is encountered and where surface stability 
is frequently required. Wrought heat-resisting stainless steels (>55 percent 
iron) are excluded from this classification. 

Trace Element . — Small quantity (<0.1 percent) of an element known to 
degrade the physical or mechanical properties of an alloy. Also commonly 
referred to as tramp and subversive elements. Many elements, including 
phosphorus, sulfur, lead, and tin, adversely affect the properties of 
nickel-base alloys. 



43 

Turnings . — A classification for scrap generated by machine tool opera- 
tions. Examples are turnings from lathes and chips from milling machines and 
shapers. All turnings may contain cutting oil and are usually cleaned, frag- 
mented, and compacted by recyclers. 

Underutilized . — Refers to scrap of a particular alloy class that is not 
remelted in that class, but for reasons of geography and/or economics and/or 
form is used to prepare a different class of alloy (downgraded) or is 
discarded. 

User . — An organization that uses a finished product until the product is 
retired from service owing to wear, corrosion, or inefficiency and/or is con- 
sidered to be obsolete. Includes aerospace, transportation, petrochemical, 
and energy conversion industries . 

Vacuum-Grade Scrap . — Scrap of the highest quality that is of known 
origin, identity, and composition. This form of scrap has not necessarily 
been previously vacuum-melted nor need it be used again in a vacuum furnace. 

Waste . — Materials generated during production and service that are not 
currently recovered. Includes dusts, floor sweepings, wear and corrosion 
products, and metals contaminated with salt, oil, or tramp elements or in 
a very dilute concentration such that they cannot now be economically 
recovered . 



44 



APPENDIX B. —DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS FLOW MODEL 

In the metals producing and using industries, it is possible to simplify 
an exceedingly complex system (number of alloys, production practices, and 
uses) by a materials flow diagram. The diagram shown in figure 1 represents 
a mass balance for these industries. This model has four discrete elements: 
raw materials, primary product, finished product, and scrap material. Each 
of these elements can be characterized in terms of the quantity and character 
of input and output materials. 

General Description of Model 

The following section summarizes how the production model was developed 
and used. Alloy classes were defined based on ranges of composition of Cr, 
Ni, Co, and Fe and distinct characteristics of the producing industries. Pro- 
duction practices, quantity of Products and scrap produced at each stage of 
production, and the character and disposition of scrap generated were all 
estimated, based on published information, Inco experience, and a selective 
industry survey. 

First, the quantity and average composition of primary production for 
1976 were estimated. Second, the alloy producers provided an estimate of 
their efficiency of production and the relative quantity of primary metal, 
purchased scrap, and home scrap used to produce these primary products. The 
alloy producers also characterized and estimated the quantities of scrap gen- 
erated during their production cycle. From this information estimates were 
made of the quantity of home scrap that was recycled internally, downgraded, 
exported, or lost. 

Next, the finished-product manufacturing cycle was examined. Through 
discussions with manufacturers and industry experts, an estimate was made of 
the overall efficiency of utilization of primary product in manufacturing the 
finished product. From this, it was possible to calculate the quantity of 
finished product and quantity of scrap generated during the base year . These 
same sources were asked to characterize the scrap generated during the 
finished-product manufacturing cycle and to provide estimates of the relative 
quantities and disposition of this prompt industrial scrap. 

Finally, end users, scrap dealers, and industry experts provided esti- 
mates of the average life cycle, and indicated scrap practices for obsolete 
equipment. An estimate was made of the average life cycle of components made 
of alloys from each class, the amount of service wastage, and the character, 
quantity, and disposition of the obsolete scrap generated when the finished 
products were removed from service. 

This model was developed, for each of the six alloy classes covered in 
this study, by gathering data and information from many of the producers and 
users of the alloys and products. The model is applied to the wrought nickel- 
and cobalt-base alloy class in the following discussion for demonstration 
purposes . 



45 

Model Applied to Wrought Nickel and Cobalt Alloy Class 

Defining the Alloy Class 

The initial step in developing the production model is to define the 
alloy class. For the wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys, the ranges of 
Cr, Ni, Co, and Fe are as follows: 15 to 25 percent Cr, to 80 percent Ni, 
to 80 percent Co, and to 20 percent Fe. 

Compositions of typical alloys included in this class are given in 
table C-2. The production of these alloys is confined to a relatively small 
number of companies that have specialized facilities for melting and hot 
working. 

Quantity of Primary Product 

Experience has shown that the information that can be most accurately 
defined within a production circuit for a given year is the quantity of pri- 
mary product. This quantity was the starting point in developing quantitative 
data in the production model. Because there is no comprehensive reporting of 
production data for this class of alloys, an estimate based on a variety of 
data sources was made. For the wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloy class, 
1976 production was estimated at 90 million pounds. Further, estimates were 
made of the quantity of specific alloys produced within this alloy class 
(table 4). Combining the information in tables 4 and C-2, it was possible 
to calculate the average composition for the alloy class: 62.5 percent 
nickel, 18.2 percent chromium, 7.0 percent iron, 4.8 percent cobalt, and 
7.5 percent other elements. This composition is representative of the raw 
materials that go into making up the melt charge and of the products and scrap 
generated throughout the production circuit. 

Constituents of the Raw Materials Charge 

The second step in developing quantitative data for the model was to 
estimate the quantity and makeup of the raw materials for melting. This 
could be done in one of two ways. First, detailed data on specific alloys 
and producers could be compiled to deteirmine total raw materials used. How- 
ever, it was found that this tjrpe of specific information was not available 
from many alloy producers and that available data are unreliable because raw 
materials inventories vary widely. An alternative approach, suggested by 
several alloy producers, was to estimate the average efficiency of production 
for each class of alloy. The figure for the wrought nickel- and cobalt-base 
alloy class derived from the survey was 50 percent. Thus, production of 
90 million pounds of wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys in 1976 required 
melting and processing of 180 million pounds of raw materials. 

The alloy producers were asked to identify the types of raw materials 
used for melting. The responses showed that, on average, the raw materials 
charge consisted of 40 percent (72 million pounds) primary metal, 13 percent 
(23.4 million pounds) purchased scrap, and 47 percent (84.6 million pounds) 
home scrap. The purchased scrap was estimated to be 100 percent solids. 



46 



derived from prompt industrial and obsolete scrap. The industry currently 
recycles all of the solids and turnings generated as home scrap. 

Characterization of Home Scrap 

From the raw materials and primary product differential, it was estimated 
that 90 million pounds of home scrap was generated in producing 90 million 
pounds of wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloy primary product in 1976. 
Based on the information provided by the alloy producers, it was estimated 
that home scrap consisted of 44 percent (79.2 million pounds) solids, 3 per- 
cent (5.4 million pounds) turnings, 1.5 percent (2.7 million pounds) grind- 
ings, 0.5 percent (1.0 million pounds) mixed skulls, spills, etc., and 1.0 
percent (1.7 million pounds) waste. 

The alloy producers indicated that the solids and turnings were recycled 
within the melt shop, the waste material was disposed of in landfills, and the 
grindings and mixed scrap were sold to dealers or secondary refiners . Virtu- 
ally all of this material is believed to be downgraded, and much of the con- 
tained chromitmi and other metals is lost. 

Quantity of Finished Product 

Next, an estimate based on production efficiency was made of the quantity 
of finished product derived from the primary product. Based on various data 
sources (including direct inquiries) , it was determined that production 
efficiency at this stage is 54 percent. Thus 48.6 million pounds of finished 
product (heat exchanger, chemical process equipment, gas turbine, etc.) was 
produced in 1976. 

Character of Prompt Industrial Scrap 

Inquiries were made regarding the character of the scrap produced during 
finished-product manufacture. It was estimated that the 41.4 million pounds 
of prompt industrial scrap consisted of 46 percent (18.9 million pounds) turn- 
ings, 30 percent (12.6 million pounds) solids, 17 percent (7.2 million pounds) 
grindings, and 6.5 percent (2.7 million pounds) wastes. 

Regarding disposition of prompt industrial scrap, it was estimated that 
5.4 million pounds of solids was recycled as purchased scrap by the wrought 
nickel- and cobalt-base alloy producers, either through direct sales or 
indirectly through dealers. The remaining usable prompt industrial scrap 
sold to scrap dealers and refiners was exported or downgraded. The 1.5 per- 
cent waste was disposed of in landfills. 

Character of Obsolete Scrap 

Manufacturers and scrap dealers were consulted to define the life cycle, 
service wastage, and decommissioning procedures for obsolete equipment con- 
taining wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys . From the responses to these 
inquiries, it was estimated that the average lifetime of these alloy compon- 
ents in such equipment (gas turbine components, heat exchangers, and chemical 



47 



and process heat equipment) is 10 years. Thus the 48.6 million pounds of 
finished product produced in 1976 will become a similar quantity of obsolete 
scrap in 1986. The obsolete scrap available for remelting in 1976 was esti- 
mated from 1966 primary production by assuming that production efficiencies 
were the same in both years. Therefore, the quantity of obsolete scrap in 
1976 was 38.4 million pounds. Service wastage due to wear, corrosion, and 
misplacement accounted for a loss of material equal to 7.5 percent of the 
original manufactured product or 2.8 million pounds. The obsolete equipment 
yielded 33.5 million pounds (8.7 percent) of solids and 2.1 million pounds 
(5.5 percent) of grindings. 

Of the obsolete scrap, it was estimated that 14.2 million pounds of 
solids was recycled to the wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloy producers, 
primarily through indirect sales. The remaining 19.2 million pounds of 
solids and 2.1 million pounds of grindings was sold for export or downgrading, 
The 2.8 million pounds of waste material was lost to the environment. 



48 



APPENDIX C— CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS OF SPECIFIC ALLOYS 

This appendix presents the chemical compositions of some of the specific 
alloys that are considered to fall within the six broad alloy classes covered 
in this study. Hardfacing cast nickel-base and cobalt-base alloys were not 
included because of the many proprietary compositions which exist. An average 
cobalt-base composition and an average nickel-base composition are presented 
in table C-3. 

Frequent mention of specific alloys is made in this report. It will be 
readily seen that the six alloy classes surveyed are characterized by a large 
number of alloy compositions and designations, many of which are proprietary. 
Many companies apply a numerical system appended to a trade name for identi- 
fication of their alloys. In some cases, the numbers are dropped in popular 
usage and the trade names are applied to the most common alloys; for example, 
INCONEL alloy 600 is often simply referred to as INCONEL, even though this 
usage is discouraged by the producer. This report identifies alloys by cor- 
rect trade name designations when it is necessary for understanding the indus- 
try. In some cases, the alloys are produced by more than one company under 
license, but are still most often referred to by the trade name of the licen- 
sor. Use of these designations does not imply endorsement of the alloy or 
producer by either the Bureau of Mines , The International Nickel Co . , Inc . , 
or the authors of the report. 

The following list gives the owners of alloy trade names referred to in 
this report. 

ARMCO — Armco Steel Cojrp. 

HASTELLOY—Cabott Corp. 

INCOLOY — Huntington Alloys, Inc. 

INCONEL — Huntington Alloys, Inc. 

PYROMET — Carpenter Technology Corp. 

RA 330~Rolled Alloys, Inc. 

RENE — General Electric Co. 

RENE — Teledyne Allvac. 

UDIMET — Allegheny Ludlum Industries. 

WASPALOY — United Technologies, Inc. 



49 



TABLE C-1. - Compositions of cast nickel- and cobalt-base alloys 



Alloy designation 



Cr 



Ni 



Nominal compos 



Co 



ition, ^ weight- 



Fe 



Mo 



W 



percent 



Ta 



Cb 



Al 



Ti 



Hf 



Alloys 71 3C and 713LC 

B-1900+Hf 

RENE 

X-40 

INCONEL alloy 738 

INCONEL alloy 718 

FSX-414 

WI-52 



12.3 
8.0 
14.6 
25.5 
16.0 
19.0 
29.0 
21.0 



74.6 
65.0 
58.6 
10.5 
61.8 
52.9 
10.0 
NAe_ 



NAp 
10.0 
15.0 
56.5 
8.5 
NAp 
52.5 
69.5 



NAp 

NAp 

NAp 

NAp 

NAp 

18.5 
1.0 
2.0 



4.2 
6.0 
4.2 
NAp 
1.7 
3.0 
NAp 
NAp 



NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
7.5 
2.6 
NAp 
7.5 
7.5 



NAp 
4.0 
NAp 
NAp 
1.7 
NAp 
NAp 

nael 



2.0 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
.9 
5.2 
NAp 
NAp 



6.1 
6.0 
4.3 
NAp 
3.4 
.6 
NAp 
NAp 



0.8 
1.0 
3.3 

NAp 
3.4 
.8 
NAp 
NAp 



NAp 
1.0 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 



NAp Not applicable. 

^Nickel- and cobalt-ba 

manganese, silicon. 



se alloys may also contain minor quantities of carbon, 
boron, zirconium, and other elements. 



TABLE C-2. - Compositions of wrought nickel- and cobalt-base alloys 



Alloy designation 



Cr 



Nominal composition,^ weight-percent 



Ni 



Co 



Fe 



Mo 



W 



Cb Al Ti 



INCONEL alloy 600 

WASPALOY 

INCONEL alloy 718 

INCONEL alloy 750 

INCONEL alloy 751 

INCONEL alloy 700 

UDIMET 500 

UDIMET 700 

RENE 41 

HASTELLOY alloy X 

HASTELLOY alloy C-2 76, 
RENE 95 ■ 



15.5 
19.5 
19.0 
15.5 
15.5 
15.5 
18.0 
15.0 
19.0 
22.0 
15.5 
14.0 



76.5 
58.4 
53.0 
73.3 
72.5 
46.3 
53.7 
52.0 
55.4 
48.4 
57.2 
Bal. 



NAp 
13.5 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
29.0 
18.5 
18.5 
11.0 
1.5 
2.0 
8.0 



8.0 
NAp 
18.5 
7.0 
7.0 
NAp 
NAp 

1.00 
NAp 
18.5 
5.5 
1.0 



NAp 
4.3 
3.0 

NAp 

NAp 
3.8 
4.0 
5.0 

10.0 
9.0 

16.0 
3.5 



NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
0.6 
3.8 
3.5 



NAp 
NAp 
5.1 
1.0 
1.0 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
3.5 



NAp 
1.3 
.5 
.7 
1.2 
3.3 
2.9 
4.2 
1.5 
NAp 
NAp 
4.4 



NAp 
3.0 
.9 
2.5 
2.5 
2.6 
2.9 
3.5 
3.1 
NAp 
NAp 
2.5 



NAp Not applicable. 

%ickel- and cobalt-base alloys may also contain minor quantities of carbon, 
manganese, silicon, boron, and zirconium. Figures for Cb include Ta. 



50 



TABLE C-3. - Compositions of wrought nickel-iron-base alloys 



Alloy designation 



Cr 



Nominal composition, 1 weight-percent 



Ni 



Co 



Fe Mo 



W Cb 



Al 



Ti 



Mn 



Si 



INCOLOY alloy 800.. 
INCOLOY alloy 801 . . 
INCOLOY alloy 802.. 
INCOLOY alloy 825^. 
INCOLOY alloy 901.. 
INCOLOY alloy 903.. 

A-286 

ARMCO 20-45-5 

V-57 

N-155 

RA 330 

PYROMET 860 



21.0 
20.5 
21.0 
21.5 
12.5 

15.0 
20.0 
14.8 
21.0 
19.0 
12.6 



32.5 
32.0 
32.5 
42.0 
42.5 
38.0 
26.0 
45.0 
27.0 
20.0 
35.0 
43.0 



NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
15.0 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
20.0 
NAp 
4.0 



44.4 
44.5 
46.0 
30.0 
36.1 
Bal. 
53.6 
27.2 
52.4 
30.5 
43.0 
30.0 



NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
3.0 
5.7 

1.3 

2.2 
1.3 
3.0 
NAp 
6.0 



NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 

NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
2.5 
NAp 
NAp 



NAp 
NAp. 
NAp 
NAp 
NAp 
3.0 
NAp 
.2 
NAp 
1.0 
NAp 
NAp 



0.4 

NAp 

.6 

.1 

.2 

.7 

.2 

NAp 

.3 

NAp 

NAp 

1.2 



0.4 
1.1 
.8 
.9 
2.8 
1.4 
2.0 
NAp 
3.0 
NAp 
NAp 
3.0 



0.8 
.8 
.8 
.5 
.1 

1.4 
4.0 

.4 
1.5 
1.5 

.1 



0.5 
.5 
.4 
.3 
.1 

.5 
.4 
.8 
.5 
1.2 
.1 



NAp Not applicable. 

%ickel-iron-base alloys may also contain minor 

and zirconium. 
^Also contains 2.25 percent copper. 



quantities of carbon, boron. 



TABLE C-4. - Compositions of major heat- and corrosion-resistant 

alloy castings 



Alloy 


Nominal composition,! 


Alloy 


Nominal composition, 1 


designation 


weight-percent 


designation 


weight-percent 




Cr 


Ni 


Cr 


Ni 


HK 


26 
26 


20 
12 


HU 


39 
25 


19 


HH 


HN 


20 


HT 


15 
28 
20 


35 

4 

10 


HL 


30 
20 
28 


20 


HC 


HF 


10 


CF-8M^ 


HD 


5 


CF-8 


20 


10 


CA-6NM 


12 


4 


CA-15 


12 


1 


CF-3M^ 


20 


10 


CN-7M 


20 


26 


CD-4MCu3 


26 


5 


CB-30.... 


20 


2 


CF-8C^ 


20 


10 


HP 


26 


35 


CA-40 


12 


1 (max) 



■"■Heat- and corrosion-resistant alloy castings may also contain minor quanti- 
ties of carbon, manganese, and silicon. The balance of the composition is 
iron. 

^Also contains 2.5 weight-percent Mo. 

^Also contains 2 percent Cu. 

^Also contains Cb; 8xC min, 1.0 percent max. 



51 



APPENDIX D. —COMPANIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED DURING THIS STUDY 

Name Category^ 

Abex Corp , ^ ^p 

Air Force Materials Laboratory q^ EH 

AiResearch Manufacturing Co GTM. PM 

Alloy Engineering & Casting Co ^p ' CP 

Avco Lycoming Division qj^ 

Brown Boveri Turbomachinery , Inc qTM 

Cabot Corp ^ 

Cannon-Muskegon Corp ^p ^p 

Carondolet Foundry Co A.P CP 

Carpenter Technology ^ 

Certified Alloy Products , Inc AP , CP 

Chromalloy Corp ^ -p-^ 

Chyrsler Corp GTM, PM 

Detroit Diesel Allison Division GTM, PM 

Duraloy Blaw-Knox Inc AP CP 

Eaton Corp PM 

Electralloy Corp AP, SR 

Ferroalloys Producers Association PIA 

Ford Motor Co GTM, PM 

General Electric Co GTM, PM 

General Motors Corp GTM, PM 

Howmet Turbine Components Corp AP , CP 

Huntington Alloys , Inc AP 

Inco Metals Co . , Inc MP 

International Metals Reclamation Co . , Inc AP , SR 

International Nickel Co . , Inc MP 

Jet Shapes , Inc CP 

Kokomo Tube Co AP , CP 

Ladish Corp F 

Levin Metals Corp SD, SR 

Martin-Marietta Corp AP , PM 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration GA, EH 

National Association of Recycling Industries , Inc PIA 

Precision Castpar ts Co . , Inc AP , CP 

Prestige Metals Co SD, SR 

RSC Materials Technology Associates , Inc C 

Samuel Keywell, Inc SD, SR 

Samuel Zuckerman and Co SD , SR 

Shieldalloy, Inc AP, MP 

Solar Turbines International GTM 

Special Metals Co AP, CP 

Suissman and Blumenthal , Inc SD , SR 

Teledyne Allvac AP 

Teledyne Ohiocast AP, CP 

TRW, Inc AP, CP 

United Airlines , Inc EH 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines GA 

United Technologies , Inc GTM, PM, 

Universal Cyclops Corp AP 

Westinghouse Electric Corp GTM, PM 

Williams Research Corp GTM. 

Wisconsin Centrifugal , Inc AP , CP 

Wyman-Gordon Co » ^ 

Private industrial association 
Product manufacturer 
Scrap dealer 
Scrap recycler 

INT.-BU.OF MINES, PGH., PA. 24692 
II c; CmUFRHMFMT PRTMTTNC; nFFTrT ■ IqRtl - 325-970 



lAP 


Alloy producer 


F: 


Forger 


PIA: 


C 


Consultant 


GA: 


Government agency 


PM: 


CP 


Castings producer 


GTM: 


Gas turbine manufacturer 


SD: 


EH 


End user 


MP: 


Metals producer 


SR: 



li^ ^'^ 




^4.* o"".*. >, 
















v' *l^Lr. Ou 



.V ^^. 







>.v 







V - 
















0' '"<(>.*•"• .'J) 













'b V" 

\>' .. -^ •'" '^^ <J> "^ <r 




^o. 


































•^^ A^ 






i'b^ ^^ 



s^, » 









<^ *'^^* ^^ ^'*' 









0_ •* -^^ - 




/.•^i.\ ^° -i^;^- °- /.-^iA co*.:^;^.*"^ y..'^.:-'*. 























(jv* ^ . . , *;<$> 













2- •' .1 



.^■^ ^. 







-^^0^ 






.^-^^ 
















^ V 
A 










.0 



^^•^^. 






A^ 



A 



<^^ ^^ 












^•i^. 



0^ o"! "« *o 




O > 







aV .... -^^ 






.-o -V /?.* ,*^ 






